The church could encourage people to have a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing. That would allow everyone in the family to attend the wedding whether they have a temple recommend or not. However, they would be deprived of a chance to punish people who are not temple worthy. They would no longer be in a position to ban people from attending a family wedding for not following their rules.

Hell who cares...Marry civilly first then get sealed whenever.
You'd think that a LOT more mixed marriages (mo and nonmo) would go this route first

My in-laws are perfect examples. They know the policies of the church and have been in leadership positions to enforce them. If one of their children or grandchildren tried to have an open, public ceremony first they'd be all over it with the guilt and shame.

That is sad...and wrong.....

Because they CAN.

They punish people for failing to OBEY!

PRAY, PAY, OBEY…..the three real fundamental requirements of The Church.

Pay Obey Ale?

I think I have an answer to this.

Because if you get married before you're sealed, and you guys expect a baby in the interim between the civil ceremony and the sealing, then that child is not "conceived under the covenant".

Am I right on this, friends?

Raise the kid as mormon and you get sealed, do all the church stuff--callings, VT, HT, FHE, PEC, etc...and you're in the highest level of the CK are you not???

I'm not stating, I am asking....

If you're sealed in the temple at the time the baby is born, your baby is still "born in the covenant". Unless you have a honeymoon baby, you would still be fine to wait a year for the sealing.

Follow. The. Money.

How many people keep temple recommends (i.e., pay the required dues) just to attend weddings? I know I did for years. The temple is the money machine. That's it's $ole purpose.

I believe this is right it is about the money but they also get the joy of being "Superior"

Why?

1. Because you have recklessly gone ahead and become carnally knowledgeable before promising the rest of your mortal existence to the building up of Mormon God's Kingdom on Earth, and you have to repent for that sin of fleshly greediness and impulsiveness for, yea, even the span of one whole year.

2. Which whole year is yea, even only 1/100th of a year on Kolob, which is, yea, even the abode of Mormon God.

3. And yea, verily, Mormon God's time is reckoned according to time of Kolob, so it cometh to pass that your having to wait one year of Earth time to repent for your carnal impulsivity is, yea, even as nothing in Mormon God's time, maybe a day or two, so consider yourself getting off light this time.

When my wife and I got married, she hadn't been a member for a year, so we weren't allowed to be married in the temple. Whew! What a blessing THAT was. I baptized my wife, which was the biggest damn mistake I ever made.

So we played the game, but we always kept getting put off from getting married in the temple. They made us take lessons which we did more than once (at least twice), but the bishop just kept putting us off. We have no idea why? Consequently, we never got married in the temple.

And now we've left that gawd damn cult altogether. I'd bet everything that if we had gone through the temple, that would have ended it for us right then and there. Maybe the bishop could see that we wouldn't have been good magic underwear material.

I married a Catholic civilly...and never for one moment considered exposing her to the Cult....or the temple...or a bunch of judgmental RS b*****s.

How are they going to embarrass NoMo and ExMo relatives if they are treated with respect at family weddings? Better to let them sit in the hall like unruly kids.

In Europe, you HAVe to get married civilly, so the same rules do not apply. That destroys any religious rationale for doing it in the states.

Follow the $$ - +1000

OBEDIENCE -

I was shamed into giving my family the bird and marrying into the temple, and I regret it today. I tried to justify it to myself, convincing myself that I was righteous.

Leave your family and cleave unto your husband - the love I felt for my husband was questioned if I did not choose the temple.

Seek first the kingdom of god, all else will follow - I felt like if I couldn't make this sacrifice I would never amount to much of a member, I was not a true to my faith and beliefs. I would also drag my husband down with me (though I did get a bit of the church way or the hi-way message also.)

After that, you really work hard to make it right because it is really not fun to admit that you were wrong and unkind to those who loved and raised you. I still haven't apologized to my family because I don't know how to.

"Leave your family and cleave unto your husband - the love I felt for my husband was questioned if I did not choose the temple."

Wow...how so??

So you don't "love" your husband if you don't get married in the temple???

I was marrying into generations of JS protecting, plains crossing, BY Danite-ing mormons. (of course I figured that out later, I only knew the faith promoting stories then.) If you were serious about your religion, you lived your religion and you followed the doctrine. Things are not shades or gray, they are BLACK and WHITE. (If you only knew the number of fights I've had, standing in a gray wasteland because I don't see in black and white.) If you are not serious enough about your religion to follow the doctrine and marry at the right time in the right place in the right way then you have no business getting married. If you love a good lds man, then you marry him the right way. I was pretty much told that civil marriages were for the weak in faith, fornicators, and those without a backbone. Kind of the sh** or get off the pot idea - but with a mormon twist. Marry in the temple or just don't get married. Dragging a good lds man down into civil marriage when he has done everything right truly makes you an evil woman.

Because Jesus is vindictive, snotty, inconsistent (UK is fine for cival marriage first) against the concept of family and is only interested in tithing cheques.

Apparently he was sooooooo angry that some would want to share their wedding day with non-members that he wanted to enforce a 24 month restriction for those who disobey him, but the ever-merciful Boyd Packer was able to persuade him to demonstrate more compassion and reduce this down to just 12 months.

I'm fortunate not to reside in US so was able to invite 300 non-member friends/family to my wedding. We had a great time and then later in the evening just a few of us had the burden of slipping away for the dull & disappointing temple sealing.

What do you mean by that? Outside the US you can have non-members in the temple?

No waiting period after a wedding outside the US before a temple sealing can be done

Why the difference?

Local laws. Some countries require a wedding that is (at least in theory) open to the public, and others require a civil ceremony before any religious ceremonies. Where that is the case, LDS rules bow to local laws.

Also, church rules specify that if traveling a great distance to a temple would involve an overnight stay for the couple, a civil ceremony can be completed first without the one year "penalty" being invoked. Now that there are so many temples in the U.S., that rule is seldom an issue anymore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 10:22PM by summer.

The fact that TSCC does not impose a one year punishment in other countries demonstrates that the punishment is not doctrinal but merely a policy.

My bride and I wanted to wait until I could go to the temple (I was a convert), but our bishop said that we should not wait. He said to start planning for a civil wedding and go to the temple later. That was great advice because my family could fully participate. We could also have sex sooner. I was going crazy.

The church would be well advised to separate marriage from a sealing. Because when the gov't recognizes the sealing as a legal marriage, then you have the gov't in your church. The day will come when the gov't will force all churches to marry anyone because it is a regulated legal proceeding of the gov't. The church would be smart if they peformed no marriages at all and only offered sealings afterwards. That is the only way they can maintain control and keep the gov't out.

Let's not forget how the Romneys were sealed in the temple the day after their civil marriage. Money and power do talk.

So your family members who are not full tithe payers cannot attend the real wedding. This will pressure some into paying up in order to get a recommend, and then be allowed to attend the ceremony.

It is not about "worthiness"..If worthiness were really an issue, the church would be flooded re-doing zillions of ordinations, settings apart, blessings etc performed by bishops and SP's who later turned out to be completely unworthy of the office they hold. We all know a bishop or SP who turned out to be a crook, cheat, adulterer, drug user or something like that. If "worthiness" mattered, everything that guy did would need to be redone...but never happens. Never. Ever. His worthiness is not an issue.


So, tell me again why parents cannot simply "attend" their child's wedding unless they have a current recommend? It is not worthiness, it is $$$$$$$$$$$

And the year waiting period is simply a way to apply more pressure on the couple and their friends and family..pay up or be left out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 02:18PM by danboyle.

Here's an interesting explanation of how it came about. I don't know who wrote this or where they came up with it.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/02/go-ahead-and-skip-that-temple-wedding.html

Control.

If your parents can attend the wedding WITHOUT being full-tithe payers then attending the "sealing" will be no big deal and not enough of an "event" for them to fork over the cash.

I think it pleases them to keep people out. Only those who pay and who are doing their duties get to see such things. Why any convert would accept that is beyond me.

Most likely just to discourage people from doing it. They're supposed to fear, "Oh, my gosh. What if we die between that year and the time when we can go to the temple? We'd better not do it that way!"

They have to pay their tithing in order to get to the temple, so there's no way they're going to make it easy to marry outside of the temple.

It would be a nice alternative if the momo-church waived the 1 year waiting period after a civil marriage. I was pretty bummed I missed by older brother's and older sister's weddings and would have preferred to have them get a civil marriage so I could attend. Rather, I had to sit outside the better-than-you-are-building and wait like the heathen I am.