Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Matthew.B
captain of 100
Posts: 877
Location: Syracuse, New York

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by Matthew.B »

Robin Hood wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:In Australia wedding ceremonies are in the Chapel, not in the Cultural Hall.
Same here.
Wedding in the chapel, followed by the reception (either in the cultural hall or another location), and then off to the Temple in the evening for a sealing.
Everyone's happy.
I don't get why this isn't acceptable practice in America as well. If it's acceptable to do it this way in other countries, it's clearly not doctrinal to have the civil wedding done in the Temple, nor is it doctrinal or historical to have the sealing ordinance be immutably tied to civil marriage. I don't know if it's an American pride thing or what, but I wish we were more flexible in the States about the civil wedding being allowed outside the temple and then the sealing ordinance done inside it.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by rewcox »

samizdat wrote:In Mexico it is similar to the UK: Government civil registry first, temple the next day. (or up to three days if necessary).
So, since the rule is "no sexual relations except with your lawfully wedded spouse", if sex did occur after the wedding, but before the sealing, it would not be breaking any commandments.

Correct?

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by ajax »

Why would sex occurring post-wedding be breaking any commandments?

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by rewcox »

ajax wrote:Why would sex occurring post-wedding be breaking any commandments?
Why the 3 days to get to the temple? Maybe it goes back to waiting a year from Civil wedding before going to the temple.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by inho »

rewcox wrote: Why the 3 days to get to the temple? Maybe it goes back to waiting a year from Civil wedding before going to the temple.
More likely it is just because the distances. You can get married in your home town and still have plenty of time to travel to temple.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by rewcox »

inho wrote:
rewcox wrote: Why the 3 days to get to the temple? Maybe it goes back to waiting a year from Civil wedding before going to the temple.
More likely it is just because the distances. You can get married in your home town and still have plenty of time to travel to temple.
Good point, what happens if plans change, and it takes a couple of months?

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by AI2.0 »

Lizzy60 wrote:A young man in my ward is getting married to a convert whose family does not like the fact that she is now Mormon, and is even more opposed to temple weddings. They will not be anywhere near the temple, an hour away, when she is married there next month. I just received an invitation to a marriage ceremony for the couple to be held in our ward building either the day before, or the day after, the temple sealing. The invitation specifically says that I am invited to the marriage, and the ceremony starts at 7:00 pm with refreshments following. I asked the young man's mom if the temple folks knew they were doing this, and she said yes, and it was fine, and that our Stake President was officiating the chapel marriage.

So, I don't want to rock the boat by calling the temple myself, just in case this is still not allowed (like when I was a temple worker). I don't want to get this family in hot water. Does anyone here have access to some current temple workers who would know the current rules/guidelines? I would love to know that the restrictions on outside ceremonies have been eased up in the US.
Are you sure it's not a ring ceremony?

Also, when my husband was Bishop (six years ago) they discouraged using the Chapel, though my husband said that he did perform one ceremony in the Chapel becuase the couple wanted it. He said he didn't make a big deal about it, since it was important to them, but they'd rather couples use the cultural hall or relief society room.

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by Lizzy60 »

The invitation specifically says I'm invited to the marriage of the couple. Ceremony begins at 7:00.
I won't know until mid-July how close it resembles a regular wedding ceremony, or a ring ceremony.
The invitation also does not mention the temple sealing, which is the day before, if I remember correctly.

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by butterfly »

Robin Hood wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:In Australia wedding ceremonies are in the Chapel, not in the Cultural Hall.
Same here.
Wedding in the chapel, followed by the reception (either in the cultural hall or another location), and then off to the Temple in the evening for a sealing.
Everyone's happy.
This method sounds great.

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by butterfly »

rewcox wrote:
inho wrote:
rewcox wrote: Why the 3 days to get to the temple? Maybe it goes back to waiting a year from Civil wedding before going to the temple.
More likely it is just because the distances. You can get married in your home town and still have plenty of time to travel to temple.
Good point, what happens if plans change, and it takes a couple of months?
If you are civilly married, it's not breaking a commandment to have sex. The sealing ordinance is not the same as getting legally married.
In the U.S. the sealer can sign your civil marriage license and that is accepted by the state, but a sealing itself is not the same as a marriage.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by A Random Phrase »

rewcox wrote:
samizdat wrote:In Mexico it is similar to the UK: Government civil registry first, temple the next day. (or up to three days if necessary).
So, since the rule is "no sexual relations except with your lawfully wedded spouse", if sex did occur after the wedding, but before the sealing, it would not be breaking any commandments.

Correct?
My understanding (I forget the source) is that the couple is not allowed to have sexual relations between the civil ceremony and the sealing, or they have to wait a year to be sealed. (Maybe it was from some handbook edition not available to the general membership.)

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by butterfly »

A Random Phrase wrote:
rewcox wrote:
samizdat wrote:In Mexico it is similar to the UK: Government civil registry first, temple the next day. (or up to three days if necessary).
So, since the rule is "no sexual relations except with your lawfully wedded spouse", if sex did occur after the wedding, but before the sealing, it would not be breaking any commandments.

Correct?
My understanding (I forget the source) is that the couple is not allowed to have sexual relations between the civil ceremony and the sealing, or they have to wait a year to be sealed. (Maybe it was from some handbook edition not available to the general membership.)
Seriously? You mean the couple could be civilly married but then they'd have to repent or wait a year to get sealed if they have sex before they make it to the temple???
Are you sure? Even in the temple it says no sexual relations unless you are legally and lawfully wedded. That sounds like going to the courthouse and signing papers in front of the justice of the peace.
But hey, what do I know? The church continues to surprise me :)

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by EmmaLee »

That makes no sense whatsoever. Have a hard time believing it to be the case.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by AI2.0 »

A Random Phrase wrote:
rewcox wrote:
samizdat wrote:In Mexico it is similar to the UK: Government civil registry first, temple the next day. (or up to three days if necessary).
So, since the rule is "no sexual relations except with your lawfully wedded spouse", if sex did occur after the wedding, but before the sealing, it would not be breaking any commandments.

Correct?
My understanding (I forget the source) is that the couple is not allowed to have sexual relations between the civil ceremony and the sealing, or they have to wait a year to be sealed. (Maybe it was from some handbook edition not available to the general membership.)
I've never heard this before. Without some kind of proof (your source) I'm inclined to disbelieve this. The couple is legally and lawfully wedded, nothing wrong in having sexual relations. It could be some European couples make this a matter of practice, but I don't think the church authorities are going to 'check'. @-)

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by AI2.0 »

butterfly wrote:
A Random Phrase wrote:
rewcox wrote:
samizdat wrote:In Mexico it is similar to the UK: Government civil registry first, temple the next day. (or up to three days if necessary).
So, since the rule is "no sexual relations except with your lawfully wedded spouse", if sex did occur after the wedding, but before the sealing, it would not be breaking any commandments.

Correct?
My understanding (I forget the source) is that the couple is not allowed to have sexual relations between the civil ceremony and the sealing, or they have to wait a year to be sealed. (Maybe it was from some handbook edition not available to the general membership.)
Seriously? You mean the couple could be civilly married but then they'd have to repent or wait a year to get sealed if they have sex before they make it to the temple???
Are you sure? Even in the temple it says no sexual relations unless you are legally and lawfully wedded. That sounds like going to the courthouse and signing papers in front of the justice of the peace.
But hey, what do I know? The church continues to surprise me :)
Rule of thumb, if it sounds like it's not true, it most likely is not true. I'd give the church the benefit of the doubt instead of thinking the worst of them.

Think about it. Why would European church leaders try to impose something like that on a couple; how would they even know if they'd violated it, they'd have to ask them before performing the sealing. And, if it were true, don't you think we'd have heard stories about couples who's hopes were dashed and everyone was disappointed because their temple sealing was put off a year because they didn't stay chaste.... when remaining chaste is NOT a requirement of legally married couples??? No, this doesn't even sound plausible.

What DOES sound plausible is that European LDS couples who must be civilly married before the sealing, FEEL that their marriage is not complete before the sealing in the temple takes place and they, individually, on their own, determine to wait to have intimate relations till after their sealing because they choose to do so. But, like I said, it would be a private matter because it would be in very intrusive and in poor taste to ask a married couple if they'd had sex. Some would and some wouldn't, especially if they were having to wait three days.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by AI2.0 »

Lizzy60 wrote:The invitation specifically says I'm invited to the marriage of the couple. Ceremony begins at 7:00.
I won't know until mid-July how close it resembles a regular wedding ceremony, or a ring ceremony.
The invitation also does not mention the temple sealing, which is the day before, if I remember correctly.
If you attend the ceremony, I hope you'll tell us what happened. Thanks.

1eunga
captain of 10
Posts: 11

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by 1eunga »

Yea please dont ever feel like u have to be "THAT GUY/GIRL" to ruin someones big day. Even if there were restrictions, seems like the leaders with the keys cleared it. I think a lot of members believe that by pointing someone elses faults, they are exalted. We need to help others, not damn them.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by Robin Hood »

"Legally and lawfully wedded" is an interesting phrase.
I suspect the two words do not mean the same thing, otherwise there would be no point in saying it.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by A Random Phrase »

I cannot find it in the 2010 CHI, so it is apparently not a current practice. Like I said, I don't remember where I read it, but it was from a Church source. It is possible it was a practice from years ago. I wish I could find it so that I, at least, can know if I really got it from a bona fide source. In any case, it looks like it is not the case now. (If there is anyone else who has heard this and has a source, please input the source in this thread.)

AI2.0, I was not thinking the worst of the Church. I was saying something that I understood to be true. To me, that policy is not thinking the worst any more than saying that the Church will not allow nonmember/unendowed members of the bride/groom's family to attend the wedding is thinking the worst. That is very upsetting to a lot of people. It is, nonetheless, true and all of us know it to be true.

Edit: I was sure, but it appears that either myself, my original (forgotten) source, or both were wrong.
Last edited by A Random Phrase on July 1st, 2016, 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by A Random Phrase »

In searching, I came upon this that I found interesting, from the 1963 handbook. All temple recommends expired on July 31st of each year, apparently no matter when they were issued.

Also:
Where parents are not eligible to enter the temple, and yet insist on witnessing the wedding ceremony of their son or daughter, bishops must apply to the First Presidency for permission if it is desired to hold a civil ceremony first, to be followed shortly afterward by the sealing in the temple. Special permission of the First Presidency in each instance of this kind is required.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by A Random Phrase »

(I thought I had already posted the following)
It looks like I may have had it backwards. 1985 handbook says
Sealing after Civil Marriage
a couple married outside the temple may not re-ceive [sic] a recommend to be sealed until at least one year after the civil marriage. The one-year waiting period does not apply in the following circumstances:
...
4. An unchaperoned couple's travel to a temple would require one or more overnight stops on the way.
__________________________________________

From 1944: Recommends expired March 31 and September 30 of each year, thus recommends were only good for 6 months in those days.
Write LEGIBLY–spell CORRECTLY
(1944)
Recommends should not be given to persons afflicted with infectious disease, or with offensive skin diseases.
1913

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: Has the Church eased up on the restrictions regarding Temple marriages?

Post by passionflower »

Maybe this can straighten out some of this confusion.

In the Netherlands, which now has a temple in Den Haag, as well as in Belgium, and in France, a couple cannot just arrange to have a church wedding and call it legal. It is the law that a couple applying for a marraige license must have a civil wedding first, performed by a government official, before any religious ceremony can take place, which would include a temple sealing. So in other words, in countries where a temple "marraige" does not exist, the church is accomodating these special circumstances by allowing this civil marraige to happen shortly before the temple ceremony.

In the USA, where temple sealers have government granted authority to marry couples, this same need for putting a civil ceremony close to the time of a church or temple wedding does not exist.

Post Reply