https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069248/church-marriage-temple-sealing-policy-mormon-lds.html

Civil marriage? No 1 year wait any longer.

This is one of the changes that have been hinted at for a long time and its a LONG TIME IN COMING. If only it were in place 25 years ago...

Very cool. FINALLY!

High time! This brings the North American church into alignment with Europe. I'm glad that church authorities realized how destructive their prior policy was to mixed-faith families.

So the church taught "fear of dying" while waiting to be sealed was not working?

What was the seminary propaganda film that was shown to scare people to marry immediately in the temple?

I found it.

For time or eternity?

A young woman is pressured to marry outside of the temple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugK40wZtbxw



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 05:07PM by messygoop.

"..., that elaborate public wedding celebrations among Latter-day Saints in Utah were turning the sacred temple sealing into an afterthought."

As they should be.

The assembly line feeling of that temple sealing makes it feel about as sacred as a fast food drive thru.

Vegas for Mormons. Instead of playing immoral games they are playing Celestial dice for their highest kingdom.

Will some TBM's still use the temple marriage excuse to snub their slacking parents (or non member ones) or relatives?

I can imagine a bunch of pious youth will say "I don't care about the policy change. I only want a temple marriage, period! After all, I have only been preparing since I was in primary."

>> "The assembly line feeling of that temple sealing makes it feel about as sacred as a fast food drive thru"

Funny you should say that. After our fast food sealing in the temple, we stopped at Arby's on the way to Motel 6. And later that evening, the church gym reception!

Classy mormon wedding for sure!

I wonder if this is going to screw up the plans of young couples and their familes who only thought they had to budget for a punch & cookies reception in the cultural hall?

I'm sure young mormon brides would love a full-on, no holds barred, white wedding gown extravaganza that they could watch over and over on YouTube.

One of the comments:
“The windows of Heaven have been opened and the Lord is truly revealing his will in this marvelous work!

We are so blessed to have President Nelson as a Prophet of the Lord leading this church. The revelation continues and may Heavenly Father continue to speak his mind to our beloved prophet.”

Good God, these people are delusional!

Also, great news. The meeting houses will be available for weddings! Just what every bride has ever wanted.

The tone of that comment sounds a little sarcastic to me.

So, will the Bishop become a paid position like the clergies of other religions so he can be available to perform all these marriage ceremonies?

So what happens in this scenario?

Jack and Jill get knocked up and were therefore not "worthy" for a temple marriage. They get a civil marriage ASAP.

How long do Jack and Jill need to wait to go to the temple? Is there still a year wait or not? If they get married civilly, is their "immorality" (aka premarital sex) forgotten?

The church is just mad that the temple thing is a big let down afterthought after having an actual FUN wedding party celebration with EVERYONE in attendance.

You still have to get a recommend to go to the temple.

I feel so bad for those nameless, faceless people who had to miss their children's wedding because of some idiotic policy.

Bingo.

It just highlights what a stupid and cruel rule it was to begin with.

Check for the small print where ghawd says that in exchange for this blessing the couple have to tithe on the value of the wedding gifts.

Now, they need to bulldoze a center aisle in each chapel, and have the bridal procession and the couple kneeling at the altar in the MEETINGHOUSE!

Then, charge a nominal $500 for the reception hall.
Start a church catering business (or have a select few hand-picked Mormon Royalty businesses) to provide the food and entertainment!

Hey, that is a new business model!

"For I the Lord, God, do not change . . . yada,yada,yadda."

However, He who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, just reversed another irrevocable decision. Way to go Jehova!

I guess when they say Heavenly Father is the same yesterday today and forever they mean you can count on him being eternally indecisive.

Yeah but we learned today that "change" is a "non-word" according to poster Jordan. God just didn't understand the word is too broad to mean anything. :-/


I especially like how the "unchanging god" changed in the Bible to having a human avatar of himself. Plus God took his meds after the OT and started acting nicer.

It's all so stupid to pretend they don't "change" whatever they want god to be for the times.

Wait. You're making it sound like man invented god and not vice-versa.

And yeah, still laughing about the "non-word, change." When you can customize the meaning of words to suit yourself, language is useless isn't it? Do we just go back to clubbing each other? Language is what changed might being right to being wrong.

Me Thor. Me use club since words no work.

Hahaha! The voice in my head dropped almost an octave while reading this!

After what the church did to my wife and I and her non-member family more than 35 years ago, I have this message to them now.
https://media.giphy.com/media/bARGkH8go4Zhe/giphy.mp4



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 12:07PM by mikemitchell.

Right?

I'm guessing they're losing the youth due to the fact that temple marriages are so Un-Pintrest. So many are getting married on the beach, etc., rather than in the temples. Then they probably just skip it all together. At least this way they can still try to get them over to the temple at some point to recoup some of their losses.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm guessing they're losing the youth due to the
> fact that temple marriages are so Un-Pintrest. So
> many are getting married on the beach, etc.,
> rather than in the temples. Then they probably
> just skip it all together. At least this way they
> can still try to get them over to the temple at
> some point to recoup some of their losses.

Makes sense. Social trends have a stronger influence on the youth than the church does. Not only are they getting the kids on the missions sooner hoping to keep them in the church, they are trying to get them into the temple sooner if the trend is to have a wedding in a public setting.

A temple sealing is pretty boring. Neal at the alter as some old dude says a few canned words. In a busy temple it's more like an assembly line. Not really special. I can see why people want something more personalized and public than that.

This Neal at the altar?

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43584-the-submission-of-one-s-will-is-really-the-only-uniquely

When the men in the red velvet chairs flip-flop on policy, it means that they inwardly recognize that the previous policy was wrong.

I am not holding my breath for an apology, though.

I don't think they ever consider anything "wrong" but rather not working. I think they believe the existing policy is working against them rather than for them. Voila! Change it.

"The men in the red velvet chairs . . . " Best description ever. I will always use it. You can't stop me. :)

This really just allows for a quicker payment than twelve months of tithing. I wonder how much money is required? Perhaps that's negotiable?

Look for that announcement next fall around October....

Old geezers still trying to control the day, though.

"The Church asks that these civil marriage ceremonies be simple and dignified. Couples may use chapels owned by the Church for these ceremonies. Regardless of location, the temple sealing should be the central focus of the marriage and provide the spiritual basis on which the couple begins life together."

Because your church leaders should totally dictate the type of civil ceremony you have.

They've always said this and it is roundly ignored -- as it should be.

I noticed that too.

I'm surprised they don't specify what underwear to wear... oh wait.

However, as much as my TBM son loves me, I think that if he were getting married soon, he and his now wife would still do the temple-only ceremony. My husband and I, along with several of her siblings couldn't attend the temple ceremony - not that we missed much.

Those life-long teachings (brainwashings) are extremely difficult to overcome.

With gay marriage becoming recognized by the state the LDS church is worried pubic opinion and the government will eventually strong arm them into having gay temple marriages.

So what the church is doing is trying to get people psychologically to view a civil marriage as a marriage and a temple sealing as a sealing.

In law definitions are important. So when the church is pressured to perform gay marriages they will just say well we don't perform marriages. Those a performed by the state. We do have a religious ordinance called a sealing but it's not a marriage.

I think this is all a move to protect temple sealings. The church is just redefining the terminology. Marriages are civil and sealings are a religious ordinance.

I do think you are on target, yea, even a bullseye.

Revelation comes from the Lord, through the legal department, signed off by the PR Department, and then flows out the tip of Rusty's lighted pen onto his Holy Note Pad.

Rusty gives thanks that he is not required to etch "the Word" onto metal plates. Though he could. He does have the hands of a surgeon after all. And he could afford the gold ones even.

"..sealings are a religious ordinance."

And you can be sealed to as any women as will have you! So we'll soon see the restoration of the celestial order.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "..sealings are a religious ordinance."
>
> And you can be sealed to as any women as will have
> you! So we'll soon see the restoration of the
> celestial order.

Sealings are still polygamous. That never changed. A male priesthood holder can be sealing to multiple women to this day. A woman can only be sealed to one man.

They have changed and softened things but in the temple, the women bow and serve the man. It's a man's world in the temple.

I was referring to them doing it NOW, as in reestablishing the new and everlasting covenant. What part of "everlasting" don't we understand? I can't believe we've trifled with ghawd's word for e long!

You're right Rubicon. My first reaction was that the church finally did the right thing regarding non member families not being able to attend a marriage ceremony. However, everything The Corporation does is self serving so of course this is nothing more than a chess move by them to build a fire wall between gay marriage and temple sealings.

It's total self-interest. The church is doing some damage prevention. Did it allow all worthy males to hold the priesthood just to be nice? Nope. The church was worried about bad publicity and more worried about losing their tax exempt status.

It's the same with the marriages. They just are getting their ducks in a row for a future legal showdown they know is coming. They will hide behind religious freedom and the first amendment and dodge having the law forcing them to have gay marriages in the temple because gay marriage is now legal and is protected by the law.

+1

Everything the Mormon church does is because of self-interest, not the interests of the members.

Soon they'll deny the old policy ever existed.

I think this is the bullseye.

McConkie and swine at the law offices are getting ahead of any future lawsuits very early to avoid court time. Paying 1000s of dollars to lawyers to explain the difference in civil marriage process and religious process as differentis wasted time & $$$. Get ahead of it and remove the wind from the lawyers sails.

The article didn't mention 'Mormon Royalty' privileges in general or the 'Mitt Romney exception'.


Oh Well....

Wow. All those years of unnecessary hurt for part member families and others "unworthy" of temple recommends. What took LDS Inc. so long to finally have a heart.

My parents were divorced before my mom and my brothers joined the Mormon church. My brothers had a special ring ceremony for my never-mo dad when they married so he wouldn't feel left out. He did feel left out though, and it really hurt him.

The Mormon church has been responsible for so much hurt in families. At least they've finally corrected some of the hurt...a little too late for my now deceased dad though.

I wasn't in the cult that long so I didn't know about any of this. But this press release reads:

"Latter-day Saints often are married and sealed simultaneously in temples in the United States, Canada and many other countries where laws permit."

So how can they now say that getting rid of a one-year wait to be sealed is a new policy, if marraige and sealing were already done simultaneously?

I am probably missing some important point here but would appreciate if someone would explain, thanks. :)

In the US (and other places as noted), the marraige and sealing in the temple occur at the same time. In those countries if a couple got married outside of the temple, they had to wait a year before they could be sealed in the temple. With the new policy, they can get married outside of the temple, and then be sealed in the temple withou having to wait.

In other places (esp. Europe), marriages must be performed in a public place, so they were not performed in mormon temples. In those countries, the couple would get married publicly, then
could get sealed without a waiting period. So the new policy in the US makes things the same as in Europe.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> new policy in the US makes things the same as in Europe.

Thank you for explaining!!! :)

announcement by only what? 3 months and 10 days. I wonder what my daughter would have done.

I'm afraid that until this sinks in that there will be those who see temple marriage as the first thing they should do and not consider those who can't be there.

I just don't know how to feel at this moment.

P.S. I think Rubicon hit the nail on the head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 04:59PM by cl2.

Well now they can go to the temple in the morning, get their endowment if need be, get sealed and have a regular marriage ceremony and reception later that same day. Why they not do this long ago beats me.

the 'wedding after sealing' thing was heavily discouraged, but ? How could it be effectively prohibited?


'Wedding-after-sealing' was said by many ChurchCo leaders to be 'a mockery of the Temple Sealing/Ceremony';


Yeah, Right, as if it's not stupid enough in the First Place :(

Another policy change in order to remain relevant.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/couples-married-civilly-authorized-for-immediate-temple-marriage

The picture in the Mormon church press release portrays a typical Mormon wedding couple, right?

Right. Just your average mormon couple...

"Church leaders said the policy change does not reduce the significance of the temple sealing, which they called a "crowning experience."

Anybody here feel like it was really a "crowning experience"?


P.S. Part of the spam code for this post was DUD, which I suspect is how many of you felt............

Haha. There is more than one definition for crowning and some of the other definitions for "crowning" really fit the temple sealing. WINK WINK

They left out the following statement"

Sorry for all the lives ruined and family discord from the old marriage policy.

We are not hypocrites. God has spoken.