Comments on: Temple Weddings vs Civil Weddings

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It’s because we don’t have to be married civilly, since Temple marriages are recognised. I wouldn’t have wanted to be married civilly anyway, I am glad we were sealed straightaway in the Temple. And our family who couldn’t attend, it doesn’t make much difference to them now.

By: marie

marie — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

"And our family who couldn't attend, it doesn't make much difference to them now." -

If you only knew the pain that is routinely caused by this policy you wouldn't have tossed off this statement.

The policy of restricting marriages to recommend holders is a blight against the church.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It doesn't though. It was our brothers who were unable to attend the ceremony, and my brother who really wanted to be there was still able to be a part of the rest of our wedding.

It is more important to me that I be sealed to my family forever, than it is that everyone see it happen. I feel the same way. I couldn't watch my aunt be sealed in the temple, I couldn't watch many of my family members be sealed because I didn't havea recommend at the time. But the most important thing is the marriage covenant being made in the temple, not who gets to see it. One day people will understand. The Lord doesn't create these policies (and yes, being able to enter the temple is part of this, as we need to be worthy, and it shouldn't be taken lightly) to cause pain but to help us attain eternal happiness and progress.

Marriages aren't restricted to recommend holders, only sealings in the Temple. If someone chooses to be married outside the Temple, anyone can attend. But that marriage is only intact for this life, not for eternity, and my choice to be married in the Temple was so I could be and am sealed to my husband forever. It was and is more important to me. When my brother is able to be married forever, one day, he will understand. In the meantime, it hasn't affected our relationship.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

"The policy of restricting marriages to recommend holders is a blight against the church."

The Church doesn't restrict marriages to recommend holders. All of my brothers were married in meetinghouses and none of the weddings required a temple recommend from attendees.

By: harpingheather

harpingheather — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

>>Is there something inherently better with being married and sealed in the temple compared to being married civilly one day and sealed in the temple the next (or even later the same day)? <<

Among other things, the last time I heard anything about this there was a policy in place. If you were temple-worthy members and you chose to have a civil ceremony, you had to wait a year before you could be sealed in the temple. I know that's going to incense some people but you have to remember, it's about respect and sacred ordinances. Sealing is sacred. It's not something to be taken lightly. It's not something to be done as an after-thought. In some countries, like Australia, unfortunately the laws make a civil cermony first a necessity. However, those of us who live in the U.S. and Canada are lucky enough that we don't have to do that.

You know why I say we're lucky? Because of what Kim said. He pointed out that in the countries where a civil ceremony is necessary, it's necessary because the laws of that country don't consider a Temple marriage to be valid. To non-members, who most likely feel that one church is just as good as the next, our insistence on the sacred sealing ceremony is just a quirk. "Oh those strange Mormons" they say and get all upset because we believe in something so strongly that we won't bend it "to make everybody happy."

I say those of us in America and Canada should count our blessings and thank God that we live in a place where we can give temple marriage the prominence it deserves.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I understand the policy, but why is it in place?

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think that it is interesting that in Europe you can get married civily and go to the temple right after. In the US and Canada you have to wait a year.

With SSM Mairage legislation, we may not be too distant from what Europe has...maybe 5 or 10 years.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I am not sure I understand the correlation, J. Will you elaborate please.

By: NFlanders

NFlanders — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I found this thread on Times & Seasons very illuminating. Most of the people who married converts (and commented on the thread) actually regretted not doing the marriage civilly first and thus including the spouse's family.

Obviously, this isn't an issue in most temple marriages, but I think we could be a lot more sensitive to the feelings of non-member families.

By: harpingheather

harpingheather — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

>>I understand the policy, but why is it in place?<<

As I said, it's an issue of respect and reverence for the temple ordinance. The prophets have told us that God commands us to be married in this way because it is part of His plan. If you have a civil ceremony and then do the temple wedding as an after thought, you're not giving it the weight and reverence it requires.