When Openeyes brought this up 3 days back, I refused to believe it. Now I hear it from another well placed source.

The church could uncouple the wedding and the sealing in US temples any day now. If you have TBM kids planning weddings, they might have new options that include non worthy folks like us.

Keep us posted.

Don't hold your breath. There will be no temple wedding reform anytime soon.

The rumor of uncoupling the wedding and sealing ceremonies has been going on for some time now. However, General Conferences come and go but there is no change. Remember that LDS, Inc. is all about the money, so why would they change?

LDS adoptions did change. The church got out of the business, since apparently young women don't give up their babies anymore. I wonder if layoffs resulted?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2014 12:48PM by george.

Hope so.

Not so fast...here is an article that sheds light on the subject...


http://fox13now.com/2014/02/12/lds-church-considering-change-to-temple-marriage-policy/

From the article:
:.............Under current rules, LDS couples in the U.S. and Canada who have their marriage ceremony outside of one of the church’s temples are required to wait one year before they can be sealed in a temple.

The group Family First Weddings is pushing for a change to those rules, and they are encouraging LDS Church leaders to reexamine the policy.

LDS Church officials said they are constantly examining such issues and that a change in the future is possible, but they said they want to be clear they are not announcing an immediate change in policy.

“Church leaders are well aware of the issues involved and continue to examine them carefully,” LDS Church spokesman Cody Craynor said in response to the issue.

Under current rules, many LDS couples choose to only hold a temple marriage ceremony in order to avoid the waiting period. Because entry into LDS temples requires a recommend, not everyone is allowed to attend those marriage ceremonies–which is part of the reason some are requesting a change to the policy........"

You know if they were to make changes, they'd still probably strongly discourage a big wedding to keep the temple super special. I bet all the hardcore TBMs would just marry at the courthouse, and get sealed an hour later at the temple. Which is sad to me, if a couple wants something as normal and beautiful as a traditional wedding, they should go for it!

I don't think hardcore TBMs would do the courthouse thing .... The hardcore TBMs would just still get married in the temple just like now ... Just because you 'can' have a civil (or chapel) ceremony wouldn't mean you had to do both and of course having just a temple wedding would be more righteous than doing both.

So you'd end up with an unofficial social competition ... Those who have a regular wedding before the sealing so all can participate and those who stick with the temple wedding to show how committed and righteous they are .... But at least there'd be the option that isn't there now.

My guess is that they may reinstate chapel weddings and no waiting period to go to the temple as they would have the recommend before anyhow if that is what they want.

In England, for instance, the law requires a local "recorder" of some sort to be present to witness the wedding, which is conducted in a local LDS Church chapel with open invites to anyone they want to attend. Then the couple go to the temple after. for the sealing ceremony.

That can certainly be done in the US and Canada.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2014 01:07PM by SusieQ#1.

Why won't they change it? Europe is separate.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's about money. If the central event is a wedding outside the temple, then many members would choose to attend the wedding and skip the sealing without anyone noticing their absence.

The process of paying tithing to specifically get a recommend for a wedding in the temple, or seeing someone take out their endowment is called "event tithing."

It's very real and TSCC stands to lose big $$$ if people don't need temple recommends for weddings etc.

I paid the extortion money to see one daughter get married.

Great, now if they could invent a time machine I could go to my siblings weddings. Another instance of how sick and wrong the church really is. I have a good relationship with my siblings and yet did not see one of them get married. Thanks one true church.

The Gospel is true, it's the people who are imperfect. If you wanted to be there you could have. You choose to leave yourself out. Your siblings thought it was worth the effort and you think it's worth complaining about.

Typical. Such love.

It's all about choices and what is really important to each person. Lets stop blaming others for our choices. Make a choice and be happy!

The reason for the "civil marriage first" rule in the UK is because by law, weddings have to be held in a place in which anyone can attend and, if necessary, object to the marriage when they get to the part of the ceremony which invites anyone who knows of any reason why the marriage should not take place, to "speak now or forever hold their peace".

As long as it is conducted by a recognised celebrant and recorded by a recognised Registrar, the marriage is legal. Sealings have restricted attendance, so are not legal marriages.

Beautiful, traditional weddings cannot be held in morg chapels. They aren't built for it. There is no center aisle or space up front for a wedding party to stand. It would be very awkward!

I went to a chapel wedding about 50+ years ago in a Mormon chapel located in the mission field, so the couple was going to travel hundreds of miles to the temple for their sealing. The bride was escorted up the side aisle, crowded into the front under the pulpit, and then went back down the side aisle, which was next to the wall. It was so weird, I've never forgotten it.

So, would chapels have to be reconfigured, or would it all happen on the basketball court?

Re: the arrangement of pews: in some weddings, I've seen the benches re-arranged before the ceremony, to give a central aisle. It depends on whether it's feasible, with the flooring. And the smaller buildings have individual chairs, so they can be moved wherever.

I've been to a chapel wedding as well where the bride had to walk up the side aisle. In addition to not being set up for weddings, the church is butt ugly anyway. There is also no photography allowed. You know, because the chapel is so sacred and everything.

Really? You think that a marriage is about how good the church looks?

How about instead let's think of all the wonderful promises the couple will be making to one another

So why aren't those pushing for this change getting exxed too?

Perhaps Kate could call the lack of ordination of women a policy, and not doctrine. :)

This discussion made the rounds 4-5 months ago.

Personally, I remain unconvinced that there will be a change.

Remember that the Morg only changes when they have a powerful incentive to change.

As far as I know, no one has advanced a coherent motive for the Morg to change this particular policy.

I am going to be very upset if they take away my automatic excuse to not attend weddings. Please say it isn't true. I'm with the G.A.s on this one. Keep the church as nasty as it has always been so that the truth becomes more obvious.


That said, I am sorry for all of you who were excluded from weddings and really wanted to be there. (I know I'm the only mean anti-social one here.)

Thanks for being "sorry." But that does nothing for the heartache the church causes by excluding family from weddings.

It caused long-term damage between me and my two kids.

I honestly feel for all who have been excluded and I get it. The exclusion is disgusting, hurtful, and I get it.

I just wanted to make the counter point that if the church is forced to become more "palatable" with such changes, then it seems to be adding more wool to the sheep's clothing disguise.

I don't think it will happen. Follow the profit. The morg is hemorrhaging members and losing all that filthy lucre, I mean blessed holy tithings. If they can't blackmail family members over family events, how are they going to get their money? Who will pay to attend a bs sealing if a big wedding is in the offering? Gawd forbid they should lose control and not have every member under their thumb. Misers hate to lose money that they see as theirs, and the morg believes they are entitled to a members money because the morg brings them so much......joy. Fing cult.

We were married overseas, no nearby temple. Had recommends in hand at the ceremony and told to go when circumstances allowed, no waiting period. This was early 80s.

I think more people just need to stand up and wait the year. If for some reason you die before getting sealed, just do the work for the dead.

There's so much conditioning about the sacredness and specialness of a temple wedding, though, of how important making those covenants asap is. I imagine that in my situations, those who just choose the waiting period are considered less faithful, more rebellious, etc.

If they do that, it'll REALLY piss me off even more.

I missed BOTH my kids' weddings because of their stupid rule.

No, you missed both your kids weddings because adhering to the stupid rule was more important to them than having you attend their wedding was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2014 09:27AM by Stumbling.