Temple Sealings

[hostile]

My BIL was sealed in the temple to his beautiful wife and then had a nice reception that was led by her bishop (I think). He shared some words and thoughts and exchanged rings. It wasn't a traditional wedding ceremony, however, I thought it was a nice compromise for the family and friends that were non-members.

My wife and I did pretty much the same thing and it worked out fine.

[Surfah]

My wife and I did pretty much the same thing and it worked out fine.

FN Phat is talking about me and Gidget. Gidget joined the Church in HS and is the only member in her family. Her parents, divorced and each remarried, went to the Portland temple to support us and participate in pictures. One nice thing about the Portland temple is that the foyer is quite large and features a beautiful atrium. After we came out they participated in pictures with us on the temple grounds.

We had our reception later in the afternoon. Prior to the reception we had a ring ceremony for other friends and extended family unable to participate in the sealing. Gidget's bishop conducted it for us. He did a great job of briefly explaining the temple and the sealing ceremony we participated in earlier and what it meant to us and why we did it. It turned out really well.

[marsupial]

Turns out you could have attended. If you were worthy to perform baptisms for the dead, then as a sibling aged 8 - 19, you could attend the sealing. Not sure if this is new in the handbook, but it is there now.

It must be new. Or if it is not, it was not something known or practiced in 1990. It's a nice change though.

[Uncle Ted]

Turns out you could have attended. If you were worthy to perform baptisms for the dead, then as a sibling aged 8 - 19, you could attend the sealing. Not sure if this is new in the handbook, but it is there now.

Interesting... Do you know which page this is found on?

All I could find in the 2006 ed. handbook was the following:

Who May Attend a Temple Marriage

Only Members who have received their own endowments and have valid recommends may attend a temple marriage. Couples should invite only family members and close friends to be present for a temple marriage.

(pg. 82)

[BigPiney]

Interesting... Do you know which page this is found on?

All I could find in the 2006 ed. handbook was the following:

It still says it exactly like that.

and it turns out I was completely mistaken. I was wrong.

The part I read was:

Observing Sealings of Living Brothers and Sisters

To observe their living brothers and sisters being sealed to their parents, children under the age of 21 must be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents. In addition, children ages 8 and older must be baptized, and males ages 12 and older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood. If children do not live the majority of the time in the same house as those who are being sealed, First Presidency approval is required for them to observe the sealing.

Members who are married or are 21 or older must be endowed to observe such sealings.

Somehow I missed the bolded part the times I read it previously. Sorry for the confusion. It would be a nice policy if you did remove the bolded part and applied it towards marriage though.

[Majo]

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.

Wow, that's a pretty hard line stance. I agree with the others who have disagreed. Maybe ideally a wedding should be all about the couple, and they should get married how and where they want (ie, for eternity in the temple, in the case of a standard mormon couple) without regard for pleasing others. However, in reality, a wedding is also about your family (maybe even more about your family), and it's very sad IMO when family is left out--especially if it could all be avoided by getting sealed a few days later like they do in europe.

At every wedding I've attended in my and my wife's immediate family a parent or adult sibling has had to awkwardly wait outside during the ceremony. Those left out have played nice and put on smiling faces in every situation, but feelings were hurt...pretty deeply in some cases.

One sister-in-law married a convert from a catholic family. It was no small thing for his very tight-knit family to miss his wedding ceremony. They had a nice ring ceremony as a compromise, but several of his family members, particularly his mom, were hurt. My sister in law feels awful about hurting her in-law's feelings to this day.

Another sister-in-law was a rather orthodox mormon at the time of her wedding (as far as I know, anyway), and has since totally left the church and is scathingly bitter about it. She makes it very clear her issues with the church started with her temple wedding experience. She felt bad about leaving some non-mormon relatives out, and felt even worse that some mormon relatives felt somewhat manipulated into doing/saying certain things just to get temple recommends so they could attend.

Doing it like the europeans do would have circumvented hurt feelings that have left a mark on almost every wedding I've been to.

[Majo]

I have an old Church Handbook of Instructions from 1998. Here is what it says:

A couple may arrange with their bishop to hold a special meeting for relatives and friends who do not have temple recommends. This meeting provides an opportunity for those who cannot enter a temple to feel included in the marriage and to learn something of the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. The meeting may include a prayer and special music, followed by remarks of a priesthood leader. No ceremony is performed, and no vows are exchanged.
n.

I remember thinking at one point in my life that a ring ceremony was such a nice compromise and ought to prevent hurt feelings. After attending several weddings with left out family, I think it's often perceived by those left out as less of a compromise and more more of a trivial gesture--like offering somebody a tissue after you've punched him in the nose.

[Sullyute]

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.

Neither one of my parents attended my marriage. But they were waiting outside for when we came out.

[RC Vikings]

I had a guy tell me that for a church that places so much emphasis on the family it's weird they would keep them apart on this day.

[Eddie]

If the church were to go to the European method of civil ceremony followed by temple sealing, how do you think this would effect those who go through the motions for cultural reasons but have no intent of really keeping a temple covenant?

I know someone who worked at Hotel Utah (when it was a hotel) and related that finding someone's garments in the hotel garbage was fairly common on a weekend after multiple weddings. Speaking to current temple workers, they still regularly find someone's G's in the trash can there.

Maybe my assumption is off - but I'm assuming that these are folks who culturally are going through the motions of a temple wedding because they have always been told that a temple wedding is the expectation. Then once the ceremony has taken place, they toss the G's and get on with their lives as if it never happened.

So I'm wondering how many of these folks would go ahead with the civil ceremony and then just forget about the sealing ceremony. In some ways it wouldn't stand out quite as much in public, since everyone is seeing the civil event, and perhaps there would be fewer "fake" temple ceremonies.

Am I way off base?

[Sullyute]

If the church were to go to the European method of civil ceremony followed by temple sealing, how do you think this would effect those who go through the motions for cultural reasons but have no intent of really keeping a temple covenant?

I know someone who worked at Hotel Utah (when it was a hotel) and related that finding someone's garments in the hotel garbage was fairly common on a weekend after multiple weddings. Speaking to current temple workers, they still regularly find someone's G's in the trash can there.

Maybe my assumption is off - but I'm assuming that these are folks who culturally are going through the motions of a temple wedding because they have always been told that a temple wedding is the expectation. Then once the ceremony has taken place, they toss the G's and get on with their lives as if it never happened.

So I'm wondering how many of these folks would go ahead with the civil ceremony and then just forget about the sealing ceremony. In some ways it wouldn't stand out quite as much in public, since everyone is seeing the civil event, and perhaps there would be fewer "fake" temple ceremonies.

Am I way off base?

So wouldn't this actually be a good thing? People going through the temple (endowment & sealing) because they actually want to instead of feeling pressured to do so? Plus this would limit the condemnation that they may receive in the next life for the rejection of the covenants and "greater light and knowledge" they received in the temple.

[Eddie]

So wouldn't this actually be a good thing? People going through the temple (endowment & sealing) because they actually want to instead of feeling pressured to do so? Plus this would limit the condemnation that they may receive in the next life for the rejection of the covenants and "greater light and knowledge" they received in the temple.

Yeah - I agree completely - could be a good thing. It would be nice if folks making temple covenants were doing it because they believed it and wanted to and were ready to live up to the obligations rather than because they didn't want anyone to judge them.

[RC Vikings]

So I'm wondering how many of these folks would go ahead with the civil ceremony and then just forget about the sealing ceremony. In some ways it wouldn't stand out quite as much in public, since everyone is seeing the civil event, and perhaps there would be fewer "fake" temple ceremonies.

Am I way off base?

Think about the lost revenue from parents trying to keep their recommends so they can see their kids get married.

[Paperback Writer]

So wouldn't this actually be a good thing? People going through the temple (endowment & sealing) because they actually want to instead of feeling pressured to do so? Plus this would limit the condemnation that they may receive in the next life for the rejection of the covenants and "greater light and knowledge" they received in the temple.

That would be a good thing. However, there still will be pressure from parents to be sealed and there will be some who go through the motions to appease a spouse, parents, or in-laws. At least that pressure will be private for the most part and couples can be sealed on their own terms without the judgemental aspects that "they were fooling around" prior to marriage.

Having civil weddings in LDS chapels where non-member friends and family could attend would be good for inter-faith relations. Much of my interest in and respect for Roman Catholicism was a result of attending weddings of several of my friends.

Also, I don't think anything will be lost from the sealing event in and of itself if it take place after a civil ceremony.

[Solon]

This article in Slate today:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...ld.single.html

delves into the exclusive nature of LDS weddings.

“If you marry civilly first, the assumption is that you weren't sufficiently worthy to get married in the temple,” says Mary Ellen Robertson, executive director of the Sunstone Education Foundation, a nonprofit organization in Salt Lake City dedicated to the study of Mormonism.

That’s one reason Robertson’s mother was horrified when Robertson and her fiancé inexplicably chose to marry outside the temple. “It was important to me and my fiancé, Mike, to have a wedding that all our friends, family members, and his children [from a previous marriage] could attend. I didn't want to start our marriage by shutting out so many loved ones from the celebration,” says Robertson. But it’s not the standard choice.

The article also highlights a website working to ask LDS leadership to reconsider the policy of waiting a year between civil ceremonies & temple sealings (in the US).

http://familyfirstweddings.com/