Temple Sealings

[BlueHair]

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.

No other marriage ceremony should be performed following a temple marriage.

I'm not sure if the rules have changed since then.

[marsupial]

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.

Danimal's parents were not at our wedding, not because they were not worthy, but because they were serving as mission presidents at the time and the area authority did not give either of them permission to leave the mission for the wedding. Also not in attendance was my oldest brother and his wife. They did not have temple recommends at the time.

My other brother and his wife were married in the temple when I was 13 years old. Even though I knew all along that I couldn't go into the temple, when the time came for everyone to go in and I had to stay out, I felt sad to be excluded from the event.

[byu71]

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

I will have to agree with JL on this one Tick. I know we will still be good friends though.

[byu71]

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


I'm not sure if the rules have changed since then.

I have been to a couple of settings like this. One involving my DIL because her Dad couldn't make it. Her Mom bawled through the whole event because her husband couldn't be there.

The other involved a very good friend.

In both cases teaching the gospel and why the parents couldn't see their kids married would NOT have been a good idea.

Sometimes I just don't get it. You can have this nice get together and it is a great opportunity to tell those who couldn't go why they weren't good enough to go.

It reminds me of the time a guy in our office got ex'd. He got a letter saying he could no longer pay tithing, but the church would be happy for him to keep paying as he had in the past and mark it as a general donation.

[Portland Ute]

I have been to a couple of settings like this. One involving my DIL because her Dad couldn't make it. Her Mom bawled through the whole event because her husband couldn't be there.

The other involved a very good friend.

In both cases teaching the gospel and why the parents couldn't see their kids married would NOT have been a good idea.

Sometimes I just don't get it. You can have this nice get together and it is a great opportunity to tell those who couldn't go why they weren't good enough to go.

It reminds me of the time a guy in our office got ex'd. He got a letter saying he could no longer pay tithing, but the church would be happy for him to keep paying as he had in the past and mark it as a general donation.

It's so similar to the BKP talk that was linked here where he says that the funeral should be handled by LDS leaders and the gospel should be taught but that talking about the deceased is a missed opportunity.

Really? You shouldn't talk about the deceased at the funeral? I get preaching a bit of the gospel, but give me a break! I'm sorry, but I think that that family should be able to bury their dead however they like. If they want to limit the Gospel Essentials class to a few minutes and, instead, want to celebrate the life of the deceased, then that is the prerogative.

The BKP view of how a funeral should be handled seems every bit as heavy handed as the wedding issue, except for the fact that nobody is excluded.

[DU Ute]

It reminds me of the time a guy in our office got ex'd. He got a letter saying he could no longer pay tithing, but the church would be happy for him to keep paying as he had in the past and mark it as a general donation.

He should have written back saying he agreed with being unable to partake of the sacrament but he would be enjoying the mid-meeting snack they pass around.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

My parents and brothers were not able to attend.

[TexTechCoug]

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.

I am sure the church discourages it, but I don't think that doesn't mean you couldn't do it. Rather than do the civil ceremony first and have to wait a year, why not get sealed mid-week, or end of one week, and then the next week have the typical wedding.

Seems like if you are temple worthy and get sealed the Church really can't do anything more than frown when you throw a nice big normal wedding to celebrate after you have already been sealed. I don't know how a normal ceremony post sealing is much different than a huge reception, except that at some point a grouchy old man decided it cheapened the sealing.

[FN Phat]

I am sure the church discourages it, but I don't think that doesn't mean you couldn't do it. Rather than do the civil ceremony first and have to wait a year, why not get sealed mid-week, or end of one week, and then the next week have the typical wedding.

Seems like if you are temple worthy and get sealed the Church really can't do anything more than frown when you throw a nice big normal wedding to celebrate after you have already been sealed. I don't know how a normal ceremony post sealing is much different than a huge reception, except that at some point a grouchy old man decided it cheapened the sealing.

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.

[Clark Addison]

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.

I and 6 of my siblings are married, and all have been in the temple. My father and step-mother have not been able to attend any of them. He has handled it like a trooper, always being there and never complaining. In fact in some ways it has been kind of nice, since there is always someone to watch the kids while everyone else is inside. I think part of the reason he has handled it so well is that he did the same thing; neither of his parents were at his wedding in the temple. Twenty years ago, when the first of the marriages happened, I had no problems with it, and didn't really give it a second thought. Over the years, my feelings have evolved, and I feel bad that this good father, who cares very much for his children, has not been able to see any of his children wed.

It is not a matter of just paying tithing or something like that for him. There really isn't any way he will ever be able to see a temple wedding. It would go against the core principles of what he believes. While I don't agree with many of his beliefs, I certainly respect tham, and I don't see how no allowing him to participate as a family member in weddings helps him at all. Not to mention his wife, who has an unexpressed but often dim view of the Church. This doesn't help her any.

[grapevine]

I know someone who after a temple marriage ended married somone that could not go to the temple never got active in the church. Her former husband was in temple but did not see the kid that much growing up. I am sure tried to stay somewhat involved in life but lived in diffrent states.

Her present husband who was with him a good deal of growing up was not in temple. That can be hard. Dean L Larsen wrote a good book called setting the record straight on temples and explains how to handle temple ineligeble relatives.

[Viking]

I know someone who after a temple marriage ended married somone that could not go to the temple never got active in the church. Her former husband was in temple but did not see the kid that much growing up. I am sure tried to stay somewhat involved in life but lived in diffrent states.

Her present husband who was with him a good deal of growing up was not in temple. That can be hard. Dean L Larsen wrote a good book called setting the record straight on temples and explains how to handle temple ineligeble relatives.

Thanks. I'll be sure to read that book. Sounds like a really good read from someone who I am sure has a lot of experience with the subject matter.

[scottie]

It's so similar to the BKP talk that was linked here where he says that the funeral should be handled by LDS leaders and the gospel should be taught but that talking about the deceased is a missed opportunity.

Really? You shouldn't talk about the deceased at the funeral? I get preaching a bit of the gospel, but give me a break! I'm sorry, but I think that that family should be able to bury their dead however they like. If they want to limit the Gospel Essentials class to a few minutes and, instead, want to celebrate the life of the deceased, then that is the prerogative.

The BKP view of how a funeral should be handled seems every bit as heavy handed as the wedding issue, except for the fact that nobody is excluded.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

My mom and dad, who are both converts, didn't have any family at their sealing. They both were the only members in their families at the time.

Neither of our parents were at our sealing except for my Dad who may have been there in spirt. Because of a sealing clearance issue with my wife's previous marriage we were married for time-only in the SLC temple. Getting married for time-only in the temple is kind of rare and isn't done anymore from what I understand. A little more than a year later we were sealed in the Tahiti Temple. Only a three of our good friends and their wives (including SG) were in attendance.

Personally I think the ideal way of getting married is just to have a civil marriage (with all your family) in a nice setting like an old (non-LDS) church and then get sealed a year later while on your second honeymoon.

[BigPiney]

My other brother and his wife were married in the temple when I was 13 years old. Even though I knew all along that I couldn't go into the temple, when the time came for everyone to go in and I had to stay out, I felt sad to be excluded from the event.

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.