If I recall correctly, I believe there are countries outside of the United states and Canada that do not recognise temple marriages has valid. As such, members have to be married civilly before they can be sealed. I also believe that such individuals can be sealed immediately after.
In the United States and Canada (at least), temple marriages are recognised as valid. As such, members are not required to be married civilly. Members are free to be married civilly previously to the sealing if the wish. The catch, however, is that such members have to wait a year from their civil wedding before entering the temple.
Why?
I am doubtful it’s of any eternal consequence since members in other countries can do it.
Is it simply a cultural issue?
I do not see what benefit there is in forcing a husband and wife to wait an entire year to enter the temple if they are temple worthy and devoted to each other.
Come to think of it, I’m sure if we had been married civilly first, some of our siblings would have been more pleased. Not to mention those who have parents who are not active members of the Church.
I’m fretting the day, though far in the future, when I or one of my children may have to explain to their grandparents, the nature of the temple and the fact that they won’t be able to attend the ceremony. I’m hoping, obviously, that my parents and in-laws will have accepted the gospel at that time, but if not I know it will be a tough thing to explain and maybe hurtful. We are a close family. I pray that civil cermonies will be able to occur right before or after sealings by that time.
Kim: Like the Indian Placement Program thread and the Relief Society thread, this is yet another topic that boils down to, “Isn’t the Church wrong to have this policy?” Do you ever blog anything else? Have you considered blogging about why something might be right about the Church?
“Do you ever blog anything else?”
Do you ever read anything else I post on my blog?
Touché! You’ve already posted one about who the next Prophet will be, which clearly isn’t in the same category.
As Gilda Radner would say, never mind…
:)
(I wanted to add that last post before you could even reply, but it took me too long to get the accent on “Touché!” and you beat me to it.)
Anyway, on the main topic: I think the Prophet believes we should encourage couples to solemnize their actual weddings as well as their sealings in the temple, to the extent the law allows. It puts the imprimatur of obedience and devotion to divine authority on the marriage from the start. In countries where the laws don’t allow this, the Church makes a compromise provision, allowing couples to enter into lesser marriages first and then be sealed as soon as possible thereafter. But if we could have amenable laws passed in other countries, I think the Brethren would ask all couples to be not only sealed but also married in the temples.
My question is, when Kim queries about something why is it that some people automatically freak out and think he is questioning everything the Church stands for? Knowing him as I do, I can truthfully say he is genuinely curious about certain things, especially issues that seem to stem from cultural tradition. He very RARELY is criticising or disagreeing. He just wants to know. Aren’t we encouraged to question things? Good grief, he isn’t questioning the Gospel itself!
Ouch!
I didn’t think I was “freaking out” but I do keep wondering why so many of the topics are basically asking the same question, which is, “Don’t you think it’s wrong for the Church to be doing so-and-so?”
It’s usually much later in the debate that I freak out.
:)
Ah, but you are assuming he is saying “Don’t you think it’s wrong for the Church to do so-and-so?” He isn’t saying that. He is just asking why, so as to “know”. He has an inquiring mind and assumes others do too.
Ok perhaps freaking out was too harsh, I am a product of my ’80’s upbringing and have a tendency to use language that reflects that. Ture, it is usually later in the conversation you start to freak out :). You should know Kim never freaks out, no matter how intense the debate gets. He enjoys a good discussion.
Well anyway, enough good-natured joshing each other about our discussion techniques. We should veer back to the main topic.
I posted my thought that the Brethren would actually prefer to have the same restrictions in other countries that they have in the US and Canada, if only the laws made it possible. (See, Mary, I am trying to address the actual “why” question.)
Anyone plan to comment on that?