Temple Sealings

[RC Vikings]

Why are the bride and groom required to wear all the temple clothing when getting sealed?

[Moliere]

I've always thought it is simply an extension of the celestial room in that typically (or maybe in the olden days) a groom takes his bride through the veil and then into the sealing room. Obviously after going through the veil you'd be dressed in the full clothing.

It also could be the same reason we require temple workers (including those just recording baptisms) need to wear white, which reason I don't know.

[thesaint258]

I figured it was because they were participating in a temple ordinance.

[SoonerCoug]

What they need to do is let people get married in normal clothes and then allow bad Mormon and non-Mormon visitors in the room.

[The_Tick]

What they need to do is let people get married in normal clothes and then allow bad Mormon and non-Mormon visitors in the room.

They do that all the time. It is called a Church wedding.

[SoonerCoug]

They do that all the time. It is called a Church wedding.

Yeah, but then everyone would think the couple had been having premarital sex. That's what I think when I get invited to a Church wedding. Most Mormons don't want people thinking that at their wedding, even if they have been having premarital sex. That's one of the main reasons I got married in the temple.

[The_Tick]

Yeah, but then everyone would think the couple had been having premarital sex. That's what I think when I get invited to a Church wedding. Most Mormons don't want people thinking that at their wedding, even if they have been having premarital sex. That's one of the main reasons I got married in the temple.

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.

[Sullyute]

Why are the bride and groom required to wear all the temple clothing when getting sealed?

I can't remember if this was mentioned in one of the temple threads on CUF or on ldsendowment.org but as far as I understand in the early days if you were going to be sealed in the temple you went through an endowment session first. Once thru the veil you and your spouse were then ushered into one of the sealing rooms to be sealed while still in your temple clothes. The sealing is sort of an extension or culmination of the endowment.

I don't know when the practices was changed, nor does it appear that it always happened as many polygamous marriages were performed in Canada, Mexico, on boats in the Pacific Ocean, etc where there was no temple. Maybe they used endowment houses in Canada & Mexico, but who knows.

As a side note, in the early days you could only be sealed to your spouse or another person if you spouse acted as proxy. In other words, two unmarried people couldn't do proxy sealings together, only married couples could do proxy sealings. This may be why so many of Joseph Smith's wives married Brigham Young, so that BY as their current spouse could act as proxy for JS in sealing these women to JS in the temple.

[Uncle Ted]

Why are the bride and groom required to wear all the temple clothing when getting sealed?

I don't know but it makes more sense that the bride is wearing a veil in this temple ordinance than in the endowment, IMHO.

[BigFatMeanie]

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 don't always agree with your take on church-related topics but on this subject I agree with you 100%.

[Portland Ute]

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 was married in the temple and had abstained from sex, however, I diverge from you there.

I think the wedding issue is one of the sorest of sore spots between non-Members and the church. It's a very bitter pill for non-Member family members to swallow.

Hell, excluding them doesn't even go far enough. The Church counsels against ring ceremonies and other "ceremony" type activities outside of the temple for those that are being sealed in the temple.

It's a huge wedge issue and it's one that I think causes some perception issues for the LDS church.

I'd like to think there could be some middle ground where non-Members are permitted to attend the weddings.

Who knows...maybe if the Spirit of the Temple is so real, it will touch their hearts and they will be moved to investigate the church and may join. It could be a real missionary tool...

[Mrs. Funk]

I was married in the temple and had abstained from sex, however, I diverge from you there.

I think the wedding issue is one of the sorest of sore spots between non-Members and the church. It's a very bitter pill for non-Member family members to swallow.

Hell, excluding them doesn't even go far enough. The Church counsels against ring ceremonies and other "ceremony" type activities outside of the temple for those that are being sealed in the temple.

It's a huge wedge issue and it's one that I think causes some perception issues for the LDS church.

I'd like to think there could be some middle ground where non-Members are permitted to attend the weddings.

Who knows...maybe if the Spirit of the Temple is so real, it will touch their hearts and they will be moved to investigate the church and may join. It could be a real missionary tool...

In most (possibly all?) countries outside of the U.S., the temple ceremony isn't recognized as a legally-binding marriage. The couple is required to be married civilly and then they are sealed in the temple. I attended a lovely wedding at city hall in France, wherein lots of family members both in and out of our faith participated. The next day, the couple traveled to Bern to be sealed.

It seems sensible and sensitive to family members of all backgrounds to do something like this in the States and to not make a big issue about it. IMO, It doesn't denigrate the temple sealing to have a ring ceremony. If the church really is about uniting families, I'd like to see more understanding and consideration of non-member family members in situations like this.

It wouldn't really have been needed in our case (our parents and siblings are all active members), but I know loads of people for whom this was a heart-wrenching dilemma.

[Portland Ute]

In most (possibly all?) countries outside of the U.S., the temple ceremony isn't recognized as a legally-binding marriage. The couple is required to be married civilly and then they are sealed in the temple. I attended a lovely wedding at city hall in France, wherein lots of family members both in and out of our faith participated. The next day, the couple traveled to Bern to be sealed.

It seems sensible and sensitive to family members of all backgrounds to do something like this in the States and to not make a big issue about it. IMO, It doesn't denigrate the temple sealing to have a ring ceremony. If the church really is about uniting families, I'd like to see more understanding and consideration of non-member family members in situations like this.

It wouldn't really have been needed in our case (our parents and siblings are all active members), but I know loads of people for whom this was a heart-wrenching dilemma.

I am aware of the way things are done in countries where temple sealings aren't legally recognized. It's precisely because of this that I am puzzled when "civil" or "public" ceremonies are frowned upon in the U.S. (at least in Oregon, AZ, Utah and Idaho.)

[The_Tick]

I don't always agree with your take on church-related topics but on this subject I agree with you 100%.

To know me is to love me.

I go to Church every week. One of the "Same Ten People". I do all that is required. I just like to voice my opinion when I don't agree is all.

The thinking never stops here.

[myboynoah]

I am aware of the way things are done in countries where temple sealings aren't legally recognized. It's precisely because of this that I am puzzled when "civil" or "public" ceremonies are frowned upon in the U.S. (at least in Oregon, AZ, Utah and Idaho.)

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.

We're going to deal with this issue in the near future (no plans, not even close, just daughters that are approach matrimonial age). My in-laws are either Catholic or Born-Again. My BiL in particular is all up in arms over not being allowed to come to the temple. He's using all the "what kind of church doesn't allow family at the wedding" arguments. We're rather unimpressed. This is what we do. I don't foresee major family schisms and I'm not concerned that they may be thinking "what an odd church." They know we wear special underwear, so we must be plenty odd to them already.

We are who we are. Not being allowed to participate in a temple wedding isn't going to negate 20+ years of family relationships.