One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6798
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by SilentDawning » 04 Apr 2018, 19:39

LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
04 Apr 2018, 17:16
My old TMB thinking would have stated that it diminishes the temple ceremony, but my current mindset is if you really believe in the temple ceremony there would be no way of diminishing it by having a civil ceremony afterwards.
That is precisely my own thinking. What matters is that it's sealed on earth and heaven. I would also argue that the waiting period diminishes potentially eternal family relationships (non-member family who can easily be alienated by their exclusion from the actual solemnizing of the marriage) when a civil wedding, followed by a temple wedding would do just fine to include everyone.

The idea that a civil wedding "cheapens the temple wedding" implicitly puts the church policy (not doctrine, since it's not everywhere geographically) ahead of biological family relationships. You you could argue that the one year waiting period cheapens family relationships -- the supposed heart of our own gospel.

Perhaps some day, people with decision making power will see how incredible arrogant the policy is.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 4962
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by SamBee » 05 Apr 2018, 08:55

Roadrunner wrote:
04 Apr 2018, 16:53
This is a very interesting idea. I'm curious to hear from an attorney if a 2nd legal marriage on the same day actually means anything, or if it's a ring ceremony from the law's perspective.
Sorry I had to reread that, I thought you meant polygamy.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
Katzpur
Posts: 325
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 08:40
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by Katzpur » 05 Apr 2018, 09:15

Considering the fact that, in many countries, a couple must be married civilly before they can go to the temple to be sealed, and considering the fact that we are building more and more temples, giving more couples the opportunity for a temple marriage, and considering the fact that there is a growing number of part-member families (in the mission field especially), I can't help but think that this silly rule the Church enforces in the U.S. and wherever else in the world that it can will be history within, say, ten years.

Here's what I think ought to happen. If a couple is "worthy" to go to the temple, there should be no waiting period at all. They should be able to have a civil ceremony of any kind that they want and then head directly to the temple to be sealed, be sealed the following day, or celebrate their first month of married life by being sealed on their first month anniversary. Why punish a temple-worthy couple who chooses to get married civilly first, particularly when the choice is made with the feelings of non-member family members as the driving force? It is punishment, IMO.

If I were advising a young man or woman (my own child or someone else) who was engaged to someone from a part-member family, I would actually encourage them to have a civil ceremony where all could participate and then wait the prescribed period of time (currently a year) and then be sealed in the temple. I can't count the number of times I've heard people talk as if not actually getting married in the temple first is somehow a sin. If you're not doing it "the Lord's way," then you're actually guilty of a sin of omission.

When we talk about Adam and Eve in the Garden, we explain their conscious decision to eat the forbidden fruit by saying, "Yeah, they were commanded not to eat it, but they were also commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to break one commandment in order to keep another commandment. They just needed to figure out which commandment took priority." Well, we're commanded to honor our parents. I don't see it as honoring your parents by telling them that they can't attend your wedding. So, you make a choice. You don't keep the commandment to have your "official" marriage be performed in the temple, but you do keep the (more important, IMO) commandment to honor your parents. Then you wait a year and go to the temple. Problem solved -- if you can deal with the whispers of your ward members who are convinced that the reason you didn't opt for a temple wedding in the first place is that you have been sexually active and aren't worthy. (That kind of thing would probably be more common in Mormon country than elsewhere.)
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling ~

Roy
Posts: 5002
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by Roy » 05 Apr 2018, 09:40

Katzpur wrote:
05 Apr 2018, 09:15
When we talk about Adam and Eve in the Garden, we explain their conscious decision to eat the forbidden fruit by saying, "Yeah, they were commanded not to eat it, but they were also commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to break one commandment in order to keep another commandment. They just needed to figure out which commandment took priority." Well, we're commanded to honor our parents. I don't see it as honoring your parents by telling them that they can't attend your wedding. So, you make a choice. You don't keep the commandment to have your "official" marriage be performed in the temple, but you do keep the (more important, IMO) commandment to honor your parents. Then you wait a year and go to the temple. Problem solved -- if you can deal with the whispers of your ward members who are convinced that the reason you didn't opt for a temple wedding in the first place is that you have been sexually active and aren't worthy. (That kind of thing would probably be more common in Mormon country than elsewhere.)
fascinating idea. I know Curt Sunshine has posited that it is possible that Abraham was being tested by God to see if he truly had utterly abandoned human sacrifice and that Abraham failed this test. Perhaps then God can be testing some of us with this policy to see where our true character lies.

Not that I really believe God would test us by capricious church policy - but it can be fun to look at it from another perspective.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 5985
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by DarkJedi » 05 Apr 2018, 12:13

SilentDawning wrote:
04 Apr 2018, 19:39
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
04 Apr 2018, 17:16
My old TMB thinking would have stated that it diminishes the temple ceremony, but my current mindset is if you really believe in the temple ceremony there would be no way of diminishing it by having a civil ceremony afterwards.
That is precisely my own thinking. What matters is that it's sealed on earth and heaven. I would also argue that the waiting period diminishes potentially eternal family relationships (non-member family who can easily be alienated by their exclusion from the actual solemnizing of the marriage) when a civil wedding, followed by a temple wedding would do just fine to include everyone.

The idea that a civil wedding "cheapens the temple wedding" implicitly puts the church policy (not doctrine, since it's not everywhere geographically) ahead of biological family relationships. You you could argue that the one year waiting period cheapens family relationships -- the supposed heart of our own gospel.

Perhaps some day, people with decision making power will see how incredible arrogant the policy is.
I agree with you SD, and like LDSSM in my old more orthodox days I "toed the line" more. But now I see absolutely nothing wrong with being sealed in the temple and having a civil wedding ceremony following and I don't see why the church cares. It's not uncommon for people to "renew their vows" and I kind of think that's sweet and this is no different. I don't think this cheapens the temple ceremony, and quite honestly I don't think the church can really do anything about it or even needs to know anything about it because it's your personal business and the church doesn't get to control everything in our lives. Also, it doesn't even really have to be a legal sort of thing - many of my nieces/nephews/cousins have been married by exchanging vows without an "officiator."
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
Katzpur
Posts: 325
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 08:40
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by Katzpur » 05 Apr 2018, 16:39

DarkJedi wrote:
05 Apr 2018, 12:13
I agree with you SD, and like LDSSM in my old more orthodox days I "toed the line" more. But now I see absolutely nothing wrong with being sealed in the temple and having a civil wedding ceremony following and I don't see why the church cares. It's not uncommon for people to "renew their vows" and I kind of think that's sweet and this is no different. I don't think this cheapens the temple ceremony, and quite honestly I don't think the church can really do anything about it or even needs to know anything about it because it's your personal business and the church doesn't get to control everything in our lives. Also, it doesn't even really have to be a legal sort of thing - many of my nieces/nephews/cousins have been married by exchanging vows without an "officiator."
Last I knew (or to the best of my understanding) the Church never really has had any objections to a "ring ceremony" afterwards. Here in the U.S., though, you couldn't really be sealed first and then follow the sealing with a civil ceremony with an officiator pronouncing the couple husband and wife, because the sealing is recognized in all 50 states as being a legal marriage. The second ceremony (i.e. a civil ceremony pretending to be legally binding) would be pointless as the couple getting married are already married. I guess the question is, "Can two people who just got legally married in the temple get legally married again an hour later?" I don't think so. Besides, let's say the parents of the bride were non-members. They just got excluded from the "real" wedding. Is watching a "pretend" wedding really going to lessen the hurt they're feeling?

I can understand why non-members would be excluded from the sealing. But the timing issue has always been a thorn in my side. There's no reason why a "temple-worthy" couple should have to wait at all to be sealed after a civil ceremony.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling ~

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6798
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by SilentDawning » 05 Apr 2018, 17:28

Katzpur wrote:
05 Apr 2018, 16:39
DarkJedi wrote:
05 Apr 2018, 12:13
I guess the question is, "Can two people who just got legally married in the temple get legally married again an hour later?" I don't think so. Besides, let's say the parents of the bride were non-members. They just got excluded from the "real" wedding. Is watching a "pretend" wedding really going to lessen the hurt they're feeling?
I don't see the second one as a pretend marriage. It is a marriage like the first one. A lawyer would have to advise if any laws were broken. I doubt if precedent exists.

I know my parents and family had no interest in being in or at the temple. They would have loved to be in a ceremony with all the non-mem family on both sides there. With an officiator, vows (written together, but consistent with our beliefs)

I offered the Ring Exchange, and my parents wouldn't accept it as an "appeasement". But if it was a real wedding, then it would be on par with the temple one in terms of experience. What people expect to see at a wedding.

The other thing I have thought of is the one year waiting period cheapens the temple ceremony. With the exclusion of my non-mem family from the real wedding, to this day, I feel like a blight has been dragged across my own temple wedding. It's a symbol of disenfranchising my natural family. I think a civil first and a temple wedding second would have elevated everyone.

Anyway, too late for a work around. I learned that our children have their own ideas about what can happen at a wedding, so even if the idea was viable, to convince a bride, a groom, and both sides of their family to do it would be a hard sell.

But I throw it out there as a possible work around. I'm sure that if a lot of people did it, church policy would come out prohibiting it.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 4962
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by SamBee » 06 Apr 2018, 04:34

Katzpur wrote:
05 Apr 2018, 09:15
Considering the fact that, in many countries, a couple must be married civilly before they can go to the temple to be sealed, and considering the fact that we are building more and more temples, giving more couples the opportunity for a temple marriage, and considering the fact that there is a growing number of part-member families (in the mission field especially), I can't help but think that this silly rule the Church enforces in the U.S. and wherever else in the world that it can will be history within, say, ten years.
Around here we're encouraged to get married and then rush off to the temple the same day. This is very unfair, as the nearest temple is several hours journey away (one way) meaning we would have no time for a real party, and you have to book in at the temple etc. You spend most of the day travelling!

I suspect by the time it's all said and done, the couple have little energy to consummate the marriage that night.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 5985
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by DarkJedi » 06 Apr 2018, 05:22

I guess I could have been more clear on the point, Katzpur. I've been to lots of non-LDS weddings in my life because Mormons are a very tiny minority where I live and almost everybody I know (including both sides of our family) are not LDS. And I've seen the gamut of non-LDS from very high rites ordeals to Justice of the Peace to just exchanging vows (in a church and not in a church). In all of that I have never seen the marriage license - not once. Probably just over half had some sort of "I now pronounce you man and wife" line, but many had no such statement.

The most recent wedding in the family, besides my son's in the temple, was a niece. It was a very nice outdoor wedding held at the same places as the reception which immediately followed. The bride and groom exchanged beautiful vows they had written. The "officiator" (who was more like an MC) was a childhood friend of the groom, who did happen to be a Rabbi but did not do a Jewish service (the happy couple are actually both atheist, and the Rabbi made a joke about that). There was no pronouncing of husband and wife, no "you may kiss the bride" (they had been shacking up for a couple years anyway), etc. It was a wedding, period. A wedding can be whatever the happy couple wants it to be, the piece of paper is fairly inconsequential. I am likewise sure that the Methodist minister who lives around the corner would perform a wedding without the license if asked (and compensated, of course), license or not because that's not what she's concerned about. Kirby wrote a column a couple years back about performing a gay wedding with his online-obtained minister's license.

That said, I could see the rare instance where a (probably anti) parent might insist that an LDS (temple) wedding might be invalid and insist that the marriage be performed "legally" (more likely religiously) by someone else if there's going to be two ceremonies - but I have never encountered that. Parents might not be happy to be excluded from the temple (mine didn't care) but otherwise I have never encountered anyone who thought temple marriages weren't valid. FWIW, we did have a "devotional" type meeting after our wedding in our ward building.

Summary: All weddings look somewhat the same and rarely if ever display the "legal" stuff, even at the JP. A wedding, even a second one outside the temple, is a wedding as long as it looks like a wedding. It doesn't have to license to be a wedding, especially if it's a wedding that's already been performed from the legal point of view.

Sam, I don't know if this has changed or not but back in the dinosaur age when I served a mission in New Zealand, the law was the same - the wedding had to be performed in a public place where anyone could come. There was a chapel at the Hamilton temple (just called the New Zealand Temple back then) where someone could bet married by their bishop or whoever and then go immediately to the temple to be sealed. However, you could also be married in your home ward and go to the temple later. The rule in those days was 30 days. This allowed for people who lived in places like Christchurch or Invercargill (a couple day's trip to the temple by ground/water transportation) to have a wedding with their families and still be sealed. If they somehow missed the 30 days they had to wait a year.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
Katzpur
Posts: 325
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 08:40
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: One Year Waiting Period Work Around

Post by Katzpur » 06 Apr 2018, 08:57

Sorry, SilentDawning and DarkJedi. The quotes got mixed up and I'm not quite sure who said what. I just know that I wasn't the one who said what it appears I said, and I wanted to respond without compounding the quote problem. At any rate, somebody (other than me) said:
I don't see the second one as a pretend marriage. It is a marriage like the first one. A lawyer would have to advise if any laws were broken. I doubt if precedent exists.

I know my parents and family had no interest in being in or at the temple. They would have loved to be in a ceremony with all the non-mem family on both sides there. With an officiator, vows (written together, but consistent with our beliefs)

I offered the Ring Exchange, and my parents wouldn't accept it as an "appeasement". But if it was a real wedding, then it would be on par with the temple one in terms of experience. What people expect to see at a wedding.
Your parents probably didn't want a ring exchange because they recognized it for what it was: an appeasement. My point is that any ceremony that follows the actual legal union of two individuals (be it a temple sealing or a five minute ceremony in the judge's chambers) is "pretend" in that it has no legal ramifications. Here is the U.S., all of the pomp and ceremony in the world -- if it follows a temple sealing -- is, in the eyes of the law, nothing more than fanfare, because the couple is already legally married. So, if a ring exchange isn't satisfactory to some of the significant individuals in the wedding party (i.e. parents specifically), then the couple might as well make the ceremony as elaborate as they want. My whole complaint is that it shouldn't matter which comes first, the legal unifying of a couple or the sealing of that couple, and there shouldn't be a waiting period for the sealing if the civil ceremony is conducted first.

I really don't think there is anything at all the Church (locally or higher up) could do to prevent a couple from having a big wedding after the sealing. There could be music, flowers, a big processional, the whole nine yards. If the couple has already been sealed in the temple, the couple's bishop and stake president might not be happy with what happened right afterwards, but it would hardly nullify the sealing or be grounds for any disciplinary action. Of course, some couples might not want to ruffle anybody's feathers, but it's their big day, not their bishop's!

With respect to other countries (I'm thinking specifically of Canada), despite their being pressure for the newlyweds to rush off and immediately be sealed in the temple, even if it means a drive of several hours, the choice it ultimately the couple's. If my husband and I had been put in that position, I hope we would have said, "Sorry. We'll be sealed as soon as we can because it's something that's important to us. But this is our day, and we're not going to spend it driving across the country." Of course, 47 years ago, when I got married, it wouldn't have occurred to me to be so impertinent.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling ~

Post Reply