"Possibly wonderful news! I just heard 2nd-hand that '...some major changes were coming concerning temple marriages and allowing people to have a civil ceremony and then later go to the temple to be sealed.' Can anyone confirm?"
If this is true, quite the coincidence with the timing of the summons to the UK. Anybody have additional information?
I hope it doesn't happen. The church is taking a lot of flack from the rest of the world about their not allowing family and friends to attend mormon weddings. If they suddenly change that, it would suddenly tell the rest of the world that the church does change with the times and maybe it isn't so bad. But that wouldn't mean the church is suddenly true again. Would it? If the church won't exercise true leadership, continues to divide families through unhealthy, dysfunctional docterines, and has to be dragged along in to allowing weddings with all loved ones present like the rest of the world does and has been doing since civilization began, then they need to be exposed to the rest of the world as the cult that they are. Allowing civil weddings right before temple ceilings would just add to the illusion that the church isn't so bad afterall. And the scam continues...
I hope it does change asap. We don't need any more heartbreak coming from this. Families get ruined because of this. I'll be happy if the church changes it soon.
However, I don't think it's because of the court thing, because I was told last summer that they were going to change it. Although maybe it's making them change it quicker than they would have done otherwise.
Also, it's been this way in the UK the whole time, since the UK Government doesn't recognize temple marriages, so they have to have a civil wedding first.
azsteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Allowing civil weddings right before > temple ceilings would just add to the illusion > that the church isn't so bad afterall. And the > scam continues...
I like that - temple ceilings - they are sort of designed to keep people trapped within the four walls of Mormonism.
I understand your position, but I hope it does change, for the same reason that I hope marriage equality becomes universal. There are people and families suffering, because of the unfairness of Mormon Temple policies. People should not be political pawns, to suffer, because its suits the policies of some greater cause.
I agree with you in many respects, but my heart breaks for the families who are relegated to the "you're not worthy" room while their sons and daughters and siblings get married. That is a deep wound for many families, especially the families of converts or those who are disaffected.
I find it interesting that Dehlin is casting this on the waters on the same day that the UK summons hit the Internet. Demanding payment of tithing so parents, whether they truly believe the teachings or not, can see their children married is an important factor, imo.
Under John Dehlin's post about marriage is his post about the October surprise.....which one of many commenters called, the "February Fizzle." Most everyone seems to be expressing that this is all majorly silly and nothing to be alarmed about.
One TBM comment on yahoo questions mentioned that even Jesus was prosecuted, so Monson's summons doesn't alter her faith or thinking at all. What?! I certainly hope that this all doesn't backfire on us...
But civil ceremonies before a temple sealing is the rule already. Many members also do such, only to get sealed in a temple next day, a week a month or a year after.
Observing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But civil ceremonies before a temple sealing is > the rule already. Many members also do such, only > to get sealed in a temple next day, a week a month > or a year after.
This is the SOP in the UK but not in the US, Canada and other counties where the church imposes a one year punishment wait on couples who marry outside the temple even if they are otherwise temple worthy.
I hope TSCC does eliminate the one year punishment but there also needs to be a real shift in Mormon culture where couples will still be under enormous pressure to get married the "right way" even if the "right way" means breaking the hearts of your family.
In the UK and a few other countries, it is the law, so TSCC can't do anything about it, but that's not the case in the United States. If you have a civil ceremony in the states, you have to wait a year to be sealed in the temple. There have been exceptions for the connected, e.g., Mitt Romney.
There have been stories related that couples were threatened that if they had the civil ceremony and waited the year, Satan would work to destroy their relationship before they got to the temple or if there was a car accident and one spouse was killed, they would be separated forever.
So many things like that in the church. Same with missions. There's nothing wrong with waiting a couple of years and going when you're 20 instead of 18/19, but some mormons will give people who do that a really hard time... Some mormons can be so militant sometimes, it's really annoying.
It is a little too late for those of us who kept our own parents from participating because they were deemed unworthy for not being members of the church of compliance professionals. Both of my parents are dead and I cannot say I am sorry for being duped, and ripping their hearts to shreds after raising me to adulthood.
My parents had far more integrity and ethics than the bloodsucking mormons.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 08:50AM by tiptoes.
Even if the Church were to waive the one-year punishment for a civil marriage in the U.S., wouldn't there still be enormous pressure to get married "the Lord's way -- the right way" the first time around? Surely, any couple committed to a temple wedding would be vulnerable to such pressure.
I agree there would likely be pressure. But, if they have the okay from the top, then civil marriage it is. And the temple marriage ends up being inconvenient to schedule, pay for travel, etc.
It will take time for the stigma of not getting married in the temple first, the "right way" to be purged. Until 14 year old girls stop being dressed up in white wedding gowns in mutual and being told this is the only way the issue will remain.
Yes, the pressure will continue - especially for couples living in the morridor. But I do think that some couples will opt for a civil ceremony first because they want to include everyone they love - regardless of religous belief.
A talking point to bring up with couples is that having a sealing after the civil ceremony allows them to concentrate on the importance and meaning of the ritual without the distraction/pressure/anticipation of the reception and honeymoon. And without the emotional burden of knowing they have hurt people who love them.
However, I have my doubts that TSCC will do away with the one-year punishment. There are a lot of Mormons who remain just active enough to keep a current TR. "Just active enough" means they pay tithing. The businessmen who run TSCC can do math.
Perhaps Monson will be revelated to in a manner more important than okaying caffeinated soda pop after all. This could be impressive if they word it right:
"Yea verily, thus saith the Lord unto this my servant and prophet Thomas Monsoon: the saints may now marry and make merry among the heathens before being subject to mine sacred plastic wrap sealing ceremony in mine holy temple. I shall not consign them to the fires of eternal punishment, but wilt restrain mine unruly stepchild, Stan, from consuming their souls and crashing their receptions."
And yes, it will be heartbreaking to those who were being obedient by excluding loved ones from their recent temple wedding. Perhaps that heartbreak will be one of the last items on their shelf?
heh heh, thanks. I think I spent the first few years after I left TSCC joking with several newly ex-mo siblings and my ex-mo dad about "yea verily" this and "it came to pass" that.
As much as I want to see Mormonism with a black eye and a bad reputation, I think this needs to be fixed. Too many people are hurt - too many families are being crushed and WAY too many brides are having craptastic weddings. If it improves the church's image, then so be it. But the poison seeping from the temple marriage rules is so toxic, I'd rather see it stopped than see Mormonism look bad. Mormons are their own worst enemy and the only real anti-Mormons. They'll hang from their own petard without this. I really, really hope it's true and think Dehlin's sources are probably pretty good. The fact that he's trying to confirm shows his commitment to accuracy rather than faith building rumors.
One of my worst experiences in mormonism was watching my sweet wife say goodbye to her parents at the temple doors. Heart renching and once I found out the church was BS I appologized to my motherinlaw.
My daughter apologized to me just a few weeks after her wedding. Even though she was still TBM for about 5 years. Her wedding was a nightmare. She had gone through for her endowments the night before and was still shell shocked. Neither her dad nor I or either of the groom's parents were inside with them. The only one of their siblings who was endowed was the groom's brother who was on a mission, so of course also wasn't there. The only good thing was that her grandparents came from across the country and were all there with her.
This is such a mean-spirited, inhumane, deplorable practice in the name of $$$. There is no doctrinal reason for it. There are very few kids, although I've known a few, who have it in them to stand up to the pressure and say, "we're going to have a real wedding with all our family there and screw you--we'll go to the temple in a year and we don't care what anyone else thinks." I hope it changes, even though it won't erase the pain and hurt for some of us. It will make it nice for these innocent young kids. Even the Utah Mormon ultra-TBM families usually don't have all their family there. Many siblings are underage and have to wait outside and babysit. It's so so so wrong.
My SP and is wife were married in a civil ceremony and sealed in the temple the next day in the late '60's, in Utah. His wife was even a convert of less than a year and she got permission to take out her endowments along with the permission to have the sealing after the civil ceremony. The reason for having the civil ceremony first was because her parents were not members and she wanted them to attend her marriage. The policy of not allowing a civil ceremony to precede a temple sealing began after that, not sure what year. So the church would only be going back to a previous allowance, except at that time you had to get permission from SLC and I expect if it changes it would be a local issue.
Surrender Dorothy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From John Dehlin's Facebook page: > > "Possibly wonderful news! I just heard 2nd-hand > that '...some major changes were coming concerning > temple marriages and allowing people to have a > civil ceremony and then later go to the temple to > be sealed.' Can anyone confirm?" > > If this is true, quite the coincidence with the > timing of the summons to the UK. Anybody have > additional information?
The morg will adapt and evolve in order to survive. Over time it will discard more of its weird sh-t
TSCC changes with the times and later covers up and is embarrassed of the past and tries hard to not think about it or even admit it usually.
Like and agree with all the previous posters and posts- to a great degree. [Note: single man- haven't done that ceremony but family has]. I don't stand well with the secret ceremony (except that is the way J.S. wanted & needed & copied it) but understand the concept and baseness and unholyness of it all.
I see that changes will occur. Just that they will be slow, tedious and forced- as is ldsink Until the "one true church" treats everybody the same, respects equality, withholds judgement and begins to exercise compassion I don't see it going anywhere. Fast Enough.
That would certainly be good news, but I don't hang my hopes in life on supplicating Thomas Monson and his friends for favors. If they want to be jerks, that's on them. But I can't let it get me down.
I'm done groveling, or having my mood determined by these bozos.
IMHO, if the church changes the civil wedding policy, it will do so with enough rules around it that it will be difficult to actually have a civil ceremony first. It will be all about apprearances to say "I don't know that we teach that anymore".
My parents and younger sister drove 1300 miles to stand outside the temple when my first wife and I were married. I'm sorry to this day that I was such a jerk to do that.
Fast forward: I'm standing outside the temple while my only daughter is married. So I suppose I got a dose of my own medicine.
If the policy is changed, I want an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.
> > If the policy is changed, I want an apology, but > I'm not holding my breath.
Yes, I want one too. My convert DD married in an LDS temple seven years ago and NO ONE in her family was present. It was one of the most painful experiences of my life.
Now I have two grandaughters who are being raised TBM. I am hopeful that this policy changes and they will be able to defy Mormon pressure to marry in a place where everyone who loves them can be there.
Look up the family first wedding site and read some of the heartbreaking stories there.
I hope this does change before my oldest finds "the one" she wants to marry. DH and I left the church with our other children several years ago just before she left home to start school in the moridor. She is our only active LDS child and a RM, so the pressure is really on her to be finding "the one". Her YSA ward bishop even counseled her, upon her return from her mission, that her number one priority now should be finding a husband and starting a family...before continuing her education >:(
Even if it is permitted, would it become one of those "humility contests" mormons like to hold? "Oh, you got married civilly before going to the temple the next day to be sealed? Well *I* went straight to the temple because *I* am obedient and don't drink coke either."
They have been kicking this idea around for years now, with some seriousness for the last 3 years. It is preposterous to think that a London court case in the last week is what triggered the change, should it even happen. Corporations can't do anything that fast.
I bet it took them 2 years to decide on the font size to use for "JESUS CHRIST" in the name plaques on the front of their ward houses.
This case has been in works for months, if not most of a year. They have been giving depsositions. They have known about it. They have been considering the change to the temple policy in the US, but I doubt that the timing is coincidendal. It was one more thing that weighed in favor of changing the policy.
Interesting thread. But, if this change happens it might be the 'intermediate step' to a bigger policy change in the future.
If gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states then I could see TSCC pushing for the next big policy change: Everyone MUST have a civil wedding first. Period. Then TSCC could only allow 'sealings' to the male/female couple in the temple and call it a religious/doctrinal measure and not a marriage.
By re-defining the terms of temple marriage to temple sealing this might be how they plan to deal with this issue in the future.
(I'm not trying to derail your thread, just a thought).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2014 04:59PM by jiminycricket.