Recently I had a close family member get married in the temple to an awesome guy. This young man was the only member of the LDS church in his family and it was an uncomfortable situation (to say the least) for the bride, groom, and family members involved. Although there was a ring ceremony for those who couldn’t attend the temple, from what it appeared, there was an unpleasant taste in their mouths so to speak about the LDS Church and their policy with not allowing them to watch the wedding ceremony.
This situation is something that is a sore spot for many people. In fact, one blogger shares an example of someone who went as far to say that one of the main reasons why Mormons are not Christians is because they keep parents from watching their kids get married.
So what is the solution?
It appears that some people feel that a petition to the First Presidency of the Church to change the temple policy is the way to go as seen on this website.
Some people on the petition site express how in other countries a temple marriage is not counted as a civil marriage and therefore LDS couples are allowed to get married civily first and then go to a temple “sealing” shortly afterwards. Currently in the United States, if a couple gets a civil marriage first, they have to wait a year before they can go through the temple to get “sealed” (or married).
Others believe that if you follow certain steps of preparing non-member friends and family, heartache can be avoided, as seen on this site.
Personally, I do not feel that anything one can do or say can reduce the hurt a non-LDS family member feels by not being allowed to watch their close relative get married. However, I can also understand how people may feel that it lessens the purpose of the temple and maybe puts their commitment to the Lord in second place if they get married civily first.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Should the LDS church make exceptions for family members and allow them into the temple just for sealings? Should they allow couples in the U.S. to get married civily first and then married in the temple shortly thereafter as they do in other countries? Do you feel that if the LDS church allowed non-LDS people to participate in the temple that feelings towards the Church would be better and possibly a missionary tool?
Grace for Grace 
34 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Scw
If you believe that the Temple is a sacred place, consecrated for a specific purpose, then no, you should not make exceptions “just for sealings”. even the handyman and janitor in temples have to hold recommends.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Bronson
My dad isn’t a member of the church and wasn’t able to attend my marriage ceremony. It was a little awequard but it gave me an opportunity to talk about the church and it showed him and his wife how important my religion is to my wife and I. I think it is really good statement to keep our policies and boundaries.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:30 am
ray
Looking back, I can’t think of anything crueler than excluding family members — especially younger siblings — from what should be the most inclusive event of our lives. My wife and I, were we to do it all over again, would go for the civil marriage first so we could be together with all our family and then go to the temple later, even if it meant waiting a year.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm
ama49
Hi Ray,
You sound like you’re speaking from experience. What makes you say that you would do it differently? Did some of your family get mad or bitter? Did it damage relationships? What do you think would be the ideal situation?
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:30 am
Kramer
Cast not your pearls before swine.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:56 am
Sean
They shouldn’t allow non members to enter the temple, but they should change the one year waiting period. Why is there a waiting period at all? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with doctrine, but policy.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 5:13 am
Tom O.
The larger problem here is the attitude that the wedding (temple or otherwise) is not about the parents, siblings, friends, etc… The wedding is about the new couple, and the important eternal covenants they are making to the Lord and each other.
Those making the complaints often come across as believing that the wedding is somehow about themselves.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:16 am
SilverRain
Why not have the temple ceremony first, and then a civil ceremony afterwards? No one is stopping it.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm
ama49
Hi SilverRain,
If you read the Church Handbook of instruction, in section 3.5.1 it reads:
“no other marriage ceremony should be performed following a temple marriage”
You’re right, no one is stopping people from having a ceremony, but it is clearly outlined that you shouldn’t do it. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 7:47 am
SilverRain
I think that because it’s just a suggestion, that like everything else in the handbook, people should use their best judgment.
Better that than change the meaning of the temple by opening its doors to those who don’t understand or participate in its purpose.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:32 am
Last Lemming
In modern society, “marriage” has come to mean granting two people a package of government benefits. There is no reason that the granting of that package should be formalized inside an LDS temple. Do that outside of the temple where everybody can attend and perform sealings for time and all eternity inside the temple with the current restrictions (except the one-year wait). That way, everybody gets to participate and the Church gets to make the point that what we do in the temple is qualitatively different than what occurs at a government-sanctioned marriage ceremony.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 8:06 pm
ama49
Last Lemming,
That’s fine, if the couple is willing to wait for a year (this seems to only be in the U.S.).
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Anna
SilverRain, what would that civil ceremony be, though? It wouldn’t be an actual wedding, right? I think the issue is whether people get to see their children/loved ones actually get married, as opposed to seeing some pretend wedding or ring ceremony or something afterward that doesn’t necessarily have much meaning.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 8:08 pm
ama49
Hi Anna,
I think what you expressed is exactly how the young man’s parents felt. The ring ceremony was nice, but it was like a mock wedding and I’m afraid the parents felt that it was almost mockery to have it. I can understand why they’d feel that way.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 7:49 am
SilverRain
Anna, see my reply above. It applies here, too.
I think it is disingenuous for couples to foist responsibility for decision making of this kind off on the Church. There are myriads of ways to deal with this sort of thing (my marriage was to a fairly new convert, and we dealt with it without problems.)
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 11:09 pm
kromwell
I am confused as to how we have a policy on such an important issue that only affects one country. To my knowledge, this rule does not apply outside the U.S, even in countries that DO allow temple sealers to give marriage certificates. does anyone have information on this? If true, we are left with a quandry: if waiting is important, why only expect the U.S members to live up to the standard? if it isn’t really important, but the church wants to encourage a certain behavior, why not just encourage the behavior without region-specific rules that ostracize couples who choose otherwise? i just don’t understand the logic…
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 12:46 pm
ama49
Kromwell,
I’m right there with you. I would have to do some more research to find out unless someone else reading this blog knows the answer to your questions.
stay tuned..
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
Martin Holden
I like the way it is done outside the US – you have a normal wedding in the chapel for everyone, wedding reception following and then you have the Temple ceremony for the couple and endowed close friends and family afterwards. I live on an offshore island so in our case we attend the temple at the first opportunity. I got married on the 1 Nov and sealed on the 5th. I have a son who got married 17 Dec and sealed a lot later because of the Temple being closed for christmas. Having said that the things that irritate us are the fact that we canot take photos in the chapel of the wedding or video it so that we can enjoy the good memories later. We see the Temple as more the sacred religious ceremony before God and the chapel as the public celebration and affirmation of two lives coming together
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 12:45 pm
ama49
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the feedback. Maybe that’s the solution….get married off-shore! Where do you live?
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 6:54 am
Cal
ama asked, “Should the LDS church make exceptions for family members and allow them into the temple just for sealings?”
In my view, that’s one good option.
Then he asked, “Should they allow couples in the U.S. to get married civilly first and then married in the temple shortly thereafter as they do in other countries?”
That’s the second best option.
Then he asked, “Do you feel that if the LDS church allowed non-LDS people to participate in the temple [weddings] that feelings towards the Church would be better and possibly a missionary tool?”
Yes.
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 12:44 pm
ama49
Hi Cal,
Thanks for your feedback. It is good to have an Evangelical perspective.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 10:00 am
Sally
I married a new convert. We married, then were sealed a year later. I was so happy that I had a reason to being married civilily first – I would have hated to start out my relationship with my in-laws by telling them they couldn’t see their son’s marriage. I think a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing a day or week later would be wonderful for another reason. The reception is the big focus of the day – so much stress and preparation. It would be great to have the civil marriage followed by the reception. The sealing would be on a day when that is the only focus. I think it would be much more meaningful.
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm
ama49
Hi Sally,
I see no reason why there should be a year’s wait in between and I agree that the way you suggest would be much less painful for the non-member family members. I don’t even know where that policy came from. Any ideas?
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Martin Holden
Isle of Man
LikeLike
August 1, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Veronica Messegee
I’m the only member of my family. When my husband and I were to be married in the temple, we made arrangements to have it done in San Antonio (near my family) so we could honor my family and the traditions…have a reception or something. I was told by my family not to bother because it didn’t really mean anything to them. When you are a convert and your family is opposed to your membership in the church….any excuse to feel excluded from the new convert’s life is just that…an excuse. I say keep it the same. The way that it is done in the US is the Lord’s way. The difference in other countries is to accomodate the law of the land. Doing it any differently would detract from the meaning of the sealing and mean that we feared man more than God. Many converts lose their families because they join the church. It’s sad but true. For those of us who do, we would be willing to give up everything to do it the right way…even a wedding that our biological families could attend.
LikeLike
August 3, 2011 at 7:02 am
ama49
Hi Veronica,
Welcome to the blog at graceforgrace and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
As you can see from other comments, this is a pretty touchy issue. Your experience is one I’ve witnessed many times. I can see both view points of keeping it the way it is, but I can also see how it could open someones heart who had bitter feelings towards the church if they were allowed to participate somehow. However, as you bring up, if they are bitter, nothing you do will appease them and chances are if they were allowed into the temple without having a humble heart they would find more things to stir up with the way the LDS church does things.
LikeLike
August 3, 2011 at 8:38 am
Glenn Smith
kromwell et al,
Some countries REQUIRE all marriages to be performed civilly. Only in those countries are temple ceremonies performed immediately after the civil marriage. Canadian members have the same rules as US members.
LikeLike
August 7, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Taylor S.
Two thoughts…
1) What if temple sealing were limited to only the couple in question and a sealer and witnesses being temple workers, excluding members and non-members alike from what should really be an intensely spiritual, personal moment? What do you think the reaction would be?
2) Our society places too much importance on weddings compared to marriages as it is. I think that putting an emphasis on getting sealed in the temple, regardless of the costs, is an example of how this trend can be reversed.
LikeLike
August 7, 2011 at 10:14 pm
ama49
Hi Taylor,
Thanks for your thoughts and for stopping by.
Personally, I don’t think the first option would fly. I know I wanted to have friends and family there to witness my sealing. There were too many people who had played a role in me overcoming certain struggles in life to get to the point I could get married. I wanted to make sure I honored them by having them at the sealing. Certain close family members weren’t able to be there and before hand I approached them and asked them if they were o.k. with a ring ceremony afterwards. They were fine with it, so I was lucky.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 8:33 am
Taylor
In my own ideas of the waiting period that is required for those who live inside the US and those who live outside I would have to say that it deals with those who are willing to rather just go for a Civil marriage than the wonderful blessings of being Sealed forever together in A temple of God. It is more of the idea that people don’t, sometimes, have the faith to get married in the temple, or they might not be worthy to get married in the temple and therefore need to wait sometime before they can get sealed. There are a lot of differing circumstances for this period and it is mostly a time for getting prepaired spiritually for this wonderful blessing. It is a time for the couple to get ready and gain more faith in their relationship with one another and with the Lord. Why it is only in the US is a very good question. My thought process behind it is that we have been seeing and will probably still see a huge increase in divorces within the bonds of marriage! As far as my knowledge preceeds me and I will do more study on this theory to test it is that other countries outside fo the US have a societal outlook on marriage as you are married and you stay married. I will look into this some more and will get back to others that have questions. I am again grateful for this opportunity to express my oppinion as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and thank you for all your views and comments.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 9:08 pm
mfundoradebe
If in South Africa you can get sealed straight after civil marriage, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t change it in the US clearly as it is not Church Doctrine. Whilst in Johannesburg, I witnessed a girl move from a wedding hall straight into the temple. That was beautiful and I see nothing wrong.
Saying they should allow people in for sealings is wrong. The temple is sacred.
But the Church should accomodate families more. It could just bring in more members 😀
LikeLike
December 24, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Joe Agogo
I was worthy to donate to the Mormon Church (they cashed the checks), I was worthy to care for and help raise my daughter with my wife, and I was worthy enough to serve 20 years in the U.S. Armed Forces so that Mormons could be free to create policies that deemed me not worthy to attend my own daughter’s marriage ceremony.
In the US, making people wait one year after a civil ceremony when they are worthy to attend a temple ceremony today is simply coercion. There’s nothing sacred about coercion…as far as I know.
LikeLike
January 3, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Texasman
There’s no reason people in the U.S. shouldn’t be able to have a civil marriage before their sealing like everyone else in the world.
LikeLike
January 21, 2015 at 8:41 pm
Kelly
Well, I am very late to this discussion, but feel compelled to say that I see no reason why a civil marriage and a temple marriage can not co-exist with each other. You don’t tell an 8 year old that they get no birthday party that year because it would conflict with the important ordinance of their baptism. Temple sealings are an ordinance and I don’t see how a marriage takes away from that sealing ordinance. Although my husband and I were married in the temple and both sides of our family and friends were all able to be there, I know for myself, that so much was happening that day by the time we got to the sealing I was so overwhelmed that it is all a big blur. I wish I had some memory of my wedding 🙂 But it was a lot to take in at the time.
LikeLike