Trib Article on Temple Weddings

[Jeff Lebowski]

Some of you may find this interesting as this is a topic we have discussed a few times:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifesty...tml.csp?page=1

“The church is very aware of the issue you raise, and it has been exhaustively discussed over many years,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson wrote last fall to Jean Brody, a former Mormon in Canada who is concerned about being shut out of her grandchildren’s weddings. “This is a sensitive and difficult issue, with many complexities, not all of which are always apparent.”
Jolene has joined with Brody and Michelle Spencer, another Canadian woman, in circulating a petition asking the Utah-based church to allow couples to have a civil wedding first — to which everyone would be invited — then choose when they want to go to the temple for the sealing rather than waiting a year as currently required for LDS couples in North America.

From page 2:

Part of the problem has emerged in recent years as society has moved weddings from the sacred to the secular, says Brigham Young University sociologist Marie Cornwall. Marriage was once a church-centered celebration, given that most people’s religious and secular communities were the same. Now they aren’t.
Many of today’s weddings no longer are seen as a holy event before God and witnesses, she says, but rather as a chance to bring everyone together to celebrate the newlyweds.
“Everyone now has relatives who are not religious,” she says. “So weddings have become more and more part of the market. Couples are spending huge amounts of money for celebrations to include all their friends.”

Seems like a very odd point to make.

[statman]

This problem will solve itself. It's only a matter of time until the Church stops perfroming 'weddings.' We'll move to the European method of doing things with a civil wedding performed somewhere other than an LDS meetinghouse, followed - preferably immediately - by an LDS sealing in the temple.

This change will happen. The gay marriage issue will force it. It is inevitable.

[Northwestcoug]

This problem will solve itself. It's only a matter of time until the Church stops perfroming 'weddings.' We'll move to the European method of doing things with a civil wedding performed somewhere other than an LDS meetinghouse, followed - preferably immediately - by an LDS sealing in the temple.

This change will happen. The gay marriage issue will force it. It is inevitable.

Yeah, but I wish the church wasn't forced to change every non-doctrinal policy. It's like they automatically dig in their heels when someone brings up a change, even if it's warranted. Really, what good does it do to have a seperate sealing policy for different regions? Is there any downside to changing this?
Lame.

[Sullyute]

There are several things interesting about this article. One that jumps out is that apparently they make exceptions for those with influence:

Mitt and Ann Romeny exchanged rings in a civil ceremony at her parentss Bloomfield Hills, Mich., home, then flew to Utah the next day to be sealed in the Salt Lake Temple.

[Sullyute]

Here is another one:

“Many are going to run into problems with church members and nonmembers for the rest of their lives,” says Kristi Young, curator of BYU’s Wilson Folklore Archives. “How they make this work can be indicative of how they are going to deal with their families at lots of important moments — like baby blessings, baptisms and priesthood ordinations.”

Non-members are not excluded from being at and witnessing these events so I don't see how it is similar. They may not be able to participate with the laying on of hands but neither can any women, mormon or not. I realize what she is trying to say but I still think that she is comparing apples and oranges.

[Paperback Writer]

This problem will solve itself. It's only a matter of time until the Church stops perfroming 'weddings.' We'll move to the European method of doing things with a civil wedding performed somewhere other than an LDS meetinghouse, followed - preferably immediately - by an LDS sealing in the temple.

This change will happen. The gay marriage issue will force it. It is inevitable.

Agree, except why not preform the civil wedding ceremony in an LDS meetinghouse if that's what the couple wants? LDS spend all kinds of time and energy devising ways to invite the larger community into LDS meetinghouses - mostly under missionary pretenses. Why not just encourage LDS weddings there? They are more enjoyable than funerals and blood drives.

[Sullyute]

Some of you may find this interesting as this is a topic we have discussed a few times:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifesty...tml.csp?page=1

“The church is very aware of the issue you raise, and it has been exhaustively discussed over many years,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson wrote last fall to Jean Brody, a former Mormon in Canada who is concerned about being shut out of her grandchildren’s weddings. “This is a sensitive and difficult issue, with many complexities, not all of which are always apparent.”

I do not understand what Brother Otterson is saying here. I undertand the complexities from the families perspective, but from a Church perspective what are the "many complexities, not all of which are always apparent"?

I assume that he means the numbers show that if you are married in the temple that you are more likely to stay active, pay tithing, raise your kids in the gospel, etc. So the church does not want to change policy where it doesn't have to (inside North America) because this could lead to less people getting sealed in the temple and being active in the long run. So what hidden Church complexity am I missing? This is an honest question...

Sorry for the multiple posts...

[Surfah]

There are several things interesting about this article. One that jumps out is that apparently they make exceptions for those with influence:

I don't believe the wait a year thing was policy then. But I could be wrong.

[Non Sequitur]

I do not understand what Brother Otterson is saying here. I undertand the complexities from the families perspective, but from a Church perspective what are the "many complexities, not all of which are always apparent"?

I assume that he means the numbers show that if you are married in the temple that you are more likely to stay active, pay tithing, raise your kids in the gospel, etc. So the church does not want to change policy where it doesn't have to (inside North America) because this could lead to less people getting sealed in the temple and being active in the long run. So what hidden Church complexity am I missing? This is an honest question...

Sorry for the multiple posts...

Normally when a spokesman refers to the complexities of an issue, it means they don't have a good answer and would prefer not to address it.

[Paperback Writer]

I do not understand what Brother Otterson is saying here. I undertand the complexities from the families perspective, but from a Church perspective what are the "many complexities, not all of which are always apparent"?

I assume that he means the numbers show that if you are married in the temple that you are more likely to stay active, pay tithing, raise your kids in the gospel, etc. So the church does not want to change policy where it doesn't have to (inside North America) because this could lead to less people getting sealed in the temple and being active in the long run. So what hidden Church complexity am I missing? This is an honest question...

Sorry for the multiple posts...

Don't really know. Perhaps the "complexities" involve admitting that a policy is not doctrinal and may have been poor policy in the first place. Perhaps the Brethern are worried that if that policy is changed without a revelation (that isn't needed), LDS will question other poor policy decisions like some aspects of the WofW. Then mayhem will ensue with the body of the church demanding 2-hour block meetings and quarterly home teaching.

[statman]

There are several things interesting about this article. One that jumps out is that apparently they make exceptions for those with influence:

They did it a lot more often back in the days when Utah really had the only temples (and AZ)(and Alberta?). My parents met in Upstate NY in the mid-50s when the closest temple was Salt Lake. They got married and sealed in the SLC temple, but there were others in similar circumstances who got married first locally, then made the trip to SLC for the sealing. This was back in the days prior to interstates and prior to being able to afford flying across the country. Driving to Utah involved ~60 hours of driving on the old US highway system, mostly at 30-40 mph, and pretty much took a week. (Nowadays two decent drivers can slam it out in 35 hours. If you have three people, 32 hours is do-able).

The question was whether it was more 'appropriate' to have an unmarried, unchaperoned couple make the cross-country week-long trek to get married, or whether it was better to have them get married first, and then make the drive out for the sealing. My parents drove with a chaperone - my mom's roommate who was from SLC, and was going back home to prepare to go on a mission. Other couples did the 'marry first' route...

[statman]

Agree, except why not preform the civil wedding ceremony in an LDS meetinghouse if that's what the couple wants? LDS spend all kinds of time and energy devising ways to invite the larger community into LDS meetinghouses - mostly under missionary pretenses. Why not just encourage LDS weddings there? They are more enjoyable than funerals and blood drives.

Because if they performed any weddings in an LDS meeting house, they'll eventually have to perform gay weddings in an LDS meeting house. And that just ain't gonna happen...

Right now, any weddings in LDS meetinghouses are HIGHLY discouraged. I've been to two - actually really only one. One wasn't really a wedding.


The first was a wedding of two non-members, one of whom lived across the street from the Church. They were essentially non-religious, and considered the local LDS meetinghouse as much 'their church' as the local First Dutch Reformed church or Catholic Church in the local town. It was done as a (smart) goodwill gesture by our bishop.

the second wasn't really a wedding - but it kinda felt liuke one. It was a 'ring ceremony' for a couple who'd just been married civilly wherever it is you get married civilly in SLC. The guy had been divorced. It was the woman's first marriage. The guy's first wife had repeated affairs. She was excommunicated. He was always in good standing with the Church. They asked that they could be married and sealed in the temple and in such cases, the First Presidency has to give approval for the sealing. They'd waited for about a year, and still hadn't gotten permission, so their Bishop and Stake President told them to just get married. About 15 months after they got married they got permission to be sealed, and did that the next week.

[RC Vikings]

but from a Church perspective what are the "many complexities, not all of which are always apparent"?

The drop in tithing dollars from parents needing to stay TR worthy to see their children get married may be one.

[marsupial]

I have to admit. Reading about the mom, Jolene, not being able to attend her daughter's wedding was really sad. It seems like a compromise could be made.

[UtahDan]

Normally when a spokesman refers to the complexities of an issue, it means they don't have a good answer and would prefer not to address it.

I think that means there is not consensus on the issue. Greg Prince made the point recently that you can tell a lot about where the internal disagreement lies from what issues they are silent on.