Here is the link to the Mormon Survey
Did you know that in other countries you can get married outside of the Temple and then sealed the next day in the temple?
That’s the subject of this podcast. Simple. Easy. Or is it that simple or easy?
You decide.
~The Cultural Hall
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
I agree it sucks and would like to see it changed. My wife is a convert and the only member of her family. Our wedding day as a result was one of the worst days of our lives. Her family was pissed at her the whole time, and it was years before the bad feelings were quelled with the reasonable people. Her relationship with her mom, already strained by her joining the church, never recovered. We tried the ring ceremony route, but both our bishops refused at the last minute and both gave strict counsel to not exchange vows and all the other rules from the handbook. The whole thing was an awkward mess. She didn’t wear her dress for the temple pictures because she didn’t want to feel like she was rubbing it in her family’s face. I had pitched the idea of a civil ceremony and waiting, but my wife refused and said if she didn’t follow the church guidelines, her family would just see her as weak in the faith and try to get her to leave the church even more than they already have. Add on top of that she’s an only child, which just made matters worse. WHAT A MESS.
Jimmy – We would love to have your story!
I sent it in that day, but I think it’s too bitter in tone. I’m gonna rework it.
In the podcast we mention we are gathering stories for the end of July… CORRECTION – The end of August! So you still have time to send us a letter or story!! Thanks Richie T!
Jimmy Jon: So awful!
why, oh why do Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ actually think this is something Christ does? Hurt everyone! Yes, that’s what Christ would do! My mother lied so she could see me married. I didn’t know it at the time. Four years after her baptism he was still smoking! She raised my sister and me by herself, got up at 4 am for years, worked 3 jobs so we could have normal clothes. We had no car, no TV growing up. She sacrificed everything for us. She even joined the Church when we did. She liked it; she just had a hard time breaking a habit. And she should have sat outside the temple while prefect strangers–to me anyway–watched me get married?
This is so easy to remedy; it boggles the mind that they dig in their heels. Having a civil ceremony in no way disrespects the temple.
I am hoping to shed some light on why, perhaps, o
the policy is this way. In other countries the law will not recognize the marriage unless they are married under their authority, which was pointed out in the podcast. However, if their law was not that way I believe that the policy for that country would be the same as it is in the States. Here is the reason why: unless it is *absolutely* necessary, other’s authority to solemnize marriage should not be put before God’s authority. The laws of those lands require people to first be married under their law, so in these places it is necessary to be married civilly before being married in the temple. This is where the big difference comes in. See, the thing is that we aren’t just sealed in the temple, it is in fact marriage under God’s authority…his authority being the priesthood which is the power by which we are sealed. So, in the United States our law recognizes that authority (which is very good! Our government still recognizes some of God’s authority!) it is unnecessary to be married by another authority beforehand. It seems, in the States, if you choose to be married civilly you are choosing another’s authority before God’s because you do have the ability and the agency to choose His authority directly.
That being said, I agree that it really stinks that family members who can’t enter the temple for whatever reason can’t attend. I wish there was a way to help that, maybe someone will create another ceremony that can be just as wonderful and meaningful without interfering with what God has put in place so that other family members can be included, but until then, I have to agree with the policy.
And just some food for thought, it isn’t like one of the apostles just decided that people should have to wait a year before getting sealed…Christ runs His church and all policy is inspired. It would not be there if the Lord didn’t want it there.
Hope this helps a bit.
No, it doesn’t really help. Your comments are what every single person who’s had to go through a part member wedding has had to hear from their bishop and tell their friends and relatives and deal with the blowback and fallout over an event that should be a celebration. Trust me, we all know the policy, loud and clear, thanks.
And to suggest that Jesus told the brethren to do this and therefore it can’t be changed is to suggest this church isn’t built on continuing revelation. I haven’t been able to find one place in the standard works that says someone has to wait a year if they don’t get married in the temple, just like there isn’t a doctorine on what age men and women go on missions or for how long. Policy-wise, the church is in a constant state of flux to keep up with the way the church membership changes, and considering how well missionary efforts have been in gaining new members, I think The Brethren should revisit this issue since so many of us belong to part member families these days. We’re not back in pioneer times when families tried to kill their Mormon relatives which meant joining the church led to abandoning–or even fleeing from–your family. I think it’s within our rights as church members to ask The Brethren if maybe it’s time to revisit the policy in the US on temple marriage and waiting if you have a civil ceremony first.
I think in all, you should have just begun and ended with your sentence about how you think it stinks and hope that something will change. Because that’s all we say. We’re just being all Emma Smith cleaning tobacco spittle off the floor about it and asking the brethren to consult with the Lord on a change.