"Two-step" meaning there is a civil ceremony allowed before the temple sealing ceremony...so no one year wait.

The LDS Church has shown that if the poltical "heat" is too hot, they will change policies and procedures.

The most heinous policy, currently, is the exclusion of family members from the marriage ceremony because young lds couples are not "allowed" to marry in a civil ceremony and then proceed directly (or even within a few weeks/months) to a temple ceremony. The intent of the current policy is to force young couples to become indoctrinated and set the precedence early that church is before all.

So I'm going out on a limb here...with two Morg's in the presidential race this year...that the SLC boys will change the policy within the next 365 days (Oct conf?) to show how the church is always 'updating' itself to better serve its members.

The LDS Chruch...it's hip, it's current, it's kewl....

This policy will not change. It would diminish their power over marriage if they did change it. And diminishing their power over marriage in light of gay marriage being accepted more than ever is not what those geezers would ever do.

In my opinion.

"The intent of the current policy is to force young couples to become indoctrinated and set the precedence early that church is before all." That's right. And since it works, why would they change it?

I agree that the Mo Church sometimes alters policies if there is a great deal of political heat. However, this principle is not applicable here, because few nevermos know about, care about, or are affected by Mormon temple wedding policies.

We wish!

The current policy is a revenue enforcement tactic. You can't go to the temple? Why? Didn't pay your tithing? Well, pay it and fix it!

"...They were married on March 21, 1969 when Mitt was 22 and Ann was 19. The first part of their wedding took place in Ann's parents' home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in a civil ceremony officiated by church Elder Edwin Jones. Ann wore a beautiful full length white wedding dress with a long train. The next morning Mitt and Ann flew to Salt Lake City and were "sealed" for eternity in the Mormon Temple."

http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/mittromney.htm

I don't see how some reporter (or debate opponent) is not going to ask the question

Past policies were overturned not due to political heat, but due to economic survival.

Polygamy was stopped after the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed. The feds took control of kolobian temples and property. So a "revelation" was received to stop practicing polygamy. Then they got their property back and Utah was made a state, with Brigham Young as governor.

Blacks were given the priesthood in 1978 not because members stopped being racist (they didn't) but because the feds were going to take away the church's tax exempt status which would have cost them millions of dollars.

Coercing young couples to marry in the temple is a money-maker and a control mechanism. The government can't do s**t about it. No amount of pressure from the outside will make them change their policy.

I do, however, see kolobian kouples in the future being brave enough to have their own ceremonies and not giving a flying f**k if they have to wait a year to get sealed. With the City Creek Mall not even being able to turn a prophet, er profit for X number of years, these kids can rest assured that jesus isn't coming back to Missouri anytime soon. They at least have a little while to eat, drink, and be merry.

I could be wrong, though.

Second, there is no evidence LDs Inc's tax exempt status was under any IRS challenge because of their priesthood policy on blacks. They still don't let women hold the priesthood, and that doesn't threaten their tax status.

The whole "they were going to lose their tax exempt status" story is an urban legend. There were many reasons for the 1978 policy change, but this was not one of them.

was due to the growth of the Church at the time in places like Brazil, where: (1) the GAs realized that mixed ancestry among the people was so widespread that there was no practical way to keep the discrimination policy going and a lot of future embarrassment was in store since a lot of people with African ancestry had already been given the priesthood, along with leadership positions and temple "blessings"; and (2) the GAs realized that there was no real reason to keep the policy, given that it was largely just another case of Briggy blowing bigotry out his ass and calling it revelation. They trashed a lot of Briggy's bullsh*t before then, so it was no big deal to do another one.

Probably there biggest concern was how the "revelation" would play with the ordinary members who had believed in it and taught it and made excuses for it for so long. The Brethren probably did some quiet opinion research and market testing for the idea to determine whether they could avoid a major crisis of faith.

"I do, however, see kolobian kouples in the future being brave enough to have their own ceremonies and not giving a flying f**k if they have to wait a year to get sealed."

I actually have friends who did this a few years ago. She was active but liberal, he was inactive for years but started going again when they started dating. When they got engaged, his bishop decided that he hadn't been active for long enough to warrant a TR, and picked some arbitrary time period (6 months or something) before he could get one. Mind you, he had been inactive for years and when he started going again he went to her ward instead of his, so this bishop didn't know him at all.

But, she had been accepted to art school in NYC the coming fall, so they had to get married before they left. The probation period would have ended just a few weeks before they had to move, and when the bishop refused to "reduce the sentence" they just said screw it and instead opted for a beautiful spring wedding. They wanted to do it on their own time, on their own terms. They still got sealed a year later, but I think by that time it was mostly just for their parents' sake.

It seemed like every time we had a temple marriage lesson (so, every third week?) they told the same story:

A young couple were getting married, but because some of their family couldn't attend the temple they decided to have a civil ceremony and get sealed a year later. The wedding was okay, nothing "special" like a temple wedding, but it was nice that their families could be there. After they said "I do," the newly weds jumped in their car to go to the reception. But they didn't know that a rock had fallen onto the road, and when the new husband had to swerve around it he hit a truck and was killed instantly. The bride was left all alone. If only they had gotten married in the temple, they could have been sealed together for eternity instead of married for only 10 minutes.

What a mindfuck for a bunch of 14-year-old girls, eh?

Who the hell cares? Isn't that what temple work is for, anyway? If you die before you get sealed, have someone do your work for you.

Or is the story insinuating that the husband was killed b/c they didn't marry in the temple?

Because the LDS CHurch allows widows whose husbands had never either been baptized or through the temple to have their deceased husbands to be sealed to them.

So the story is nothing more than a scare tactic. If it had been true, and of course it wasn't, she could just have herself sealed to him by proxy.

I heard that story, except both the husband and wife died and were separated from each other for eternity.

Incidentally, the idea of becoming an early widow always freaked me out because women aren't allowed to be sealed to more than one man. That version of the story would have scared me regardless of whether they married in the temple or not.

The 2-step marriage used to be encouraged for those living "out in the field." Marry in your home ward and then make the schlep to a convenient temple when you were able.

But one of the reasons the church went on a temple building spree was to eliminate the need for this practice.

However, the laws in some countries mean the couple MUST marry civilly first. Bet the brethren hate that.

According the article you cite, all of the Romney children are married. Does anyone know if they married civilly first? Are Ann's parents still living and, if so, were they allowed to attend?

I wish I was as optimistic as you, but money is at the root of this policy.

There are a lot of semi-active mormons who are just active enough to get a temple recommend to they don't face the humiliation of waiting outside the temple. Without this stick of humiliation, many if not most would go completely inactive and stop paying any tithing at all. A lot of inactives "get worthy" in the months leading up to a wedding - and than means writing a hefty check for back tithing.

Extortion, thy name is Monson.

couples to be sealed while younger, and that is the real goal. It surely wouldn't mean any fewer would be sealed. There would be no excuse to avoid sealing immediately and fewer could put it off.

They might even think up some conditions for how it is done. Like funerals, a public wedding could be turned into an opportunity to preach to those in the wedding party who aren't Mormon. They could require it to be done in a chapel by a bishop, dragging more nevermos into their turf.

All the nano temples will still be there for the sealings and pictures.

Maybe they could introduce some new temple activities and say they need to clear the temple schedule of weddings to make room for say, holy craft parties.

Looking back I really wish DH and I had been civilly married first, then get sealed a year later.

As Kolobian pointed out, this may be the factor that tips the scales. When enough young couples begin to think for themselves and opt to endure the one-year punishment in exchange for having everyone they love at their wedding.

American girls dream of their perfect wedding and mormon brides are really shortchanged. I think many will start choosing to have the traditional wedding with all the trimmings and thumb their noses at TSCC.

At least, I hope so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2011 07:33PM by caedmon.

They need to tell the bishop and everyone else in TSCC to mind their own f'ing business and stay out of it. I know there would be pressure to marry in the LDS building (being relegated to the RS room), and have the bishop marry them (dumbed down temple "vows" that are meant to humiliate them for not marrying in the temple).

If you're not doing it their way, have a beautiful wedding. Rent a nice venue, write your own vows. And if something happens in that first year and you don't make it to the temple, you weren't meant to go there in the first place.

The ring exchange is already used as a "missionary moment" as this woman quoted in the recent Trib aritcle said:

Julie M. Smith, a Mormon convert in Austin, Texas, also had a positive experience with a do-it-yourself ring ceremony. It took place at a Houston country club and included a wedding march, rings, flowers, bridesmaids, vows and photos. The couple gave their LDS bishop a word-for-word script to follow.

The LDS Church may not encourage ring ceremonies that imitate a traditional wedding, she says, but she felt good about what she did for her family.

“We had about 100 people listening to a Mormon bishop talk about the temple,” Smith says. “It was an incredible missionary opportunity.”



Gag!!

For all the reasons mentioned above.

Also, the Mormon leaders know how creepy the temples are. They don't want normal, un-prepared, people to come in and feel the satanic vibes in there! They would see the horrible robes, hats, and veils, and the bride's added sleeves and dicky at her neck. They would hear their children making vows to the church instead of to each other, they would wonder what the "New and Everlasting Covenant is!

Lds, Inc. desn't want people seeing their uber-sacred masonic George Bush secret handshake. The poor visitors would have to disembowel themselves rather than reveal what they witnessed!

Given the stubbornness of the cult, we would have better luck working with the US Government, to have OUR laws changed, like the European laws, that require a civil ceremony first. Maybe there are already too many Mormons in public office, for such a law to pass.

My idea is for couples to accept the one-year wait as being normal and good! It is NOT shameful.
These couples should not be maligned and gossiped about, as though they were promiscuous before marriage, or pregnant, or less worthy. Couples who wait a year should be admired and praised for showing consideration for their dear loved-ones who are not Mormons, or who are not old enough for a recommend.

Temple brides and grooms should be openly ridiculed--for making parents, grandparents, bridesmaids, best men, siblings wait in a stuffy, crowded, hospital-type waiting room. Perhaps temple weddings should be boycotted.

the media chooses to focus on it. If it becomes an issue in the media, as in "How horrible Mormons won't let family come to weddings - did you know that Ellie Mae?" and it's something everyone is talking about, then they will change the policy.

Otherwise, it's too much of a money maker.

Cults evolve in the same way all living organisms evolve. Traits that are on balance beneficial for an organism are retained and traits that are detrimental are eventually lost.

As soon as the negative publicity and internal grumblings regarding the exclusion of family members from Temple weddings does more damage to the church than good, they will make the change. The temple ceremony was changed as soon as it was realized that acting out bizarre death rituals was likely to be doing more damage than the benefits derived from scaring people into obedience.

I doubt we will ever see the church so openly support attempts to fight against gay marriage as they did in California. They are still bleeding internally and externally from that and they know where public opinion regarding gay marriage is headed.

They can still put heaps of peer pressure on young couples to be ready to go to the temple straight after their civil wedding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 01:23AM by Simon in Oz.

Of course, anything is possible, however, there is no need to make a change in the US. The temple marriage/ceremony is legal.
No need for a civil marriage first.
Not enough pressure to make a change.
Besides, why would they? It's their religion, their practices, and it's all quite legal.

SusieQ#1, when and where did you get married?

Just curious if you had non-member family waiting in the Visitor's Center while you got married.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 02:10AM by DebbiePA.

DebbiePA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1, when and where did you get married?


Hi DebbiePA:
I got married in the Logan Temple in 1962. I was a convert of just over a year. We were living in Portland, OR at the time.

I see no reason it couldn't change. At least in the long run civil ceremonies will start getting a bigger push. Like you said, the presidential race might speed it up a little. There's nothing doctrinally to hold back such a change.

Is tscc in a 'Hunker Down' mode now?

IF they are (aren't)... how would that impact the answer to this question?

MORG is sooooooooooo secretive about Anything substantial...Didn't the Temple changes (& Blacks / Phood change) take us all by more/less surprise?

No information = No basis to make an educated guess.
guesses/predictions sometimes happen though...

Go to the temple,get sealed, have a real wedding the next day? There's no waiting period that way. I know they are counseled against it but I bet we see this practice happening more and more.

The church discourages any other ceremonies outside of the sealing, to the point that it is in writing in the CHI. In fact, the CHI mentions twice that no vows should be exchanged outside of the sealing. Which is ridiculous since no vows are exchanged inside of the temple either.

First, I would love to see what the ratings numbers are in Utah for all these bridal shows on TV. Who wants to bet there are a ton of young LDS women who are wishing that they, too, could have a regular, walk down the aisle wedding?

Second, the idea of "two step marriage" may not fly in Utah, but for the rest of the country, where the family is less likely to be LDS, I foresee more and more couples being willing to take the risk that hubby won't be hit by a falling rock for a year and having a civil ceremony first.

I sure wish I had done that!!!

My guess is the 1 year policy will remain in tact. But they will find other less costly ways to mainstream the next few years

1. The powers don't want the sealing upstaged by a real wedding

2. UBER-TMBs probably like the theologically back but not codified "conceived in the covenant" concept. Hardliners will not want to risk any eternal blessings tied to sex lost in power and glory.

1) Bride TV Shows. Here is a link that lists all the current bride shows. http://bridestelevision.com/tv/allshows.php

Don't underestimate how many hours young folks spend on these..and their influence on Morg Moms and Daughters

2) The Morg Presidential Candidates....you can see Romney and Huntsman mainstreaming before your eyes. The media frenzy over the next 12 months on these two will be furious. And the 24/7 media sharks will be searching for anything to create a buzz.

I'm doing my Media Tsunami dance....in hopes that this horrendous policy can be leveraged into oblivion.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 11:30AM by jw the inquizzinator.