If the pain of every mother-of-the-bride shunted to a temple waiting room were laid end to end, how far would it extend?
How can a church that professes devotion to the family be so cavalier about cleaving them in two?
A marriage ceremony and a sealing are two different things. “According to the customs of all civilized nations,” reads section 101 of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, “marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose. . . not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.”
Brigham Young later removed this passage. A combined wedding and sealing, apparently, had certain operational advantages when it came to keeping early polygamous marriages a secret.
There are countries where marriages must be public. In these countries, sealings stand on their own, as all religious ceremonies should. Couples are married, in public, surrounded by family and friends, and then sealed in a separate religious ceremony.
Here in the United States, we tell ourselves that,
“combining a wedding and a sealing make it more special” [because combining civil acts with religious ceremonies is a great way to highlight the importance of the latter]
“everyone can get a temple recommend, it’s just personal choices that stop them” [because surrendering one’s personal convictions and religious beliefs in order to accept Mormonism is a sacrifice that every good father or mother should be asked to make in order to see their son or daughter get married]
“it’s what God wants” [even though an early statement from church leaders states the opposite, and current policy can’t be traced to any revelatory claim].
And so parents (and grandparents, and siblings, and friends) sit patiently in temple waiting rooms (and the pain, stacked end to end, disappears into the horizon).
There is an alternative. As it states in the 1960 Handbook of Instruction, “Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing.”
The price for being married in “a public meeting, or feast” (as Joseph Smith stated should be the case), with parents, friends, and family, is a one year waiting period (and the raised eyebrows and whispered questions about “worthiness” that go along with it).
It doesn’t always happen this way. Ann, for example, was married on March 21, 1969, in her Bloomfield Hills home, with a large reception afterward at the Bloomfield Hills Country Club. Her civil ceremony was presided over by a regional representative of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Her non-member parents were there, of course, along with 300 other guests. She flew to Salt Lake the next day to be sealed in the Salt Lake temple.
Why the special treatment, you might ask? Ann Lois Davies was being married to Willard Mitt Romney, son of George W. Romney, the former Governor of Michigan, church leader, and presidential candidate. Ann’s parents, members or not, couldn’t be shunted off to a temple waiting room while their daughter was married.
What kind of message would that send?
;
[Last Post: 39 Please Don’t Tell Me I Don’t Understand the Gospel]
[See Go Ahead And Skip That Temple Wedding, from the Pure Mormonism blog, and Exploring LDS Temple Wedding Exclusion and Inclusion, a Mormon Stories podcast. Thanks to Jean Bodie for a timely and helpful response to a request for information.]
To be fair, in the 1835 edition, celestial marriage had not yet been “revealed”, so it may have been replaced by the higher law of private temple marriages. But I think that’s a load of hooey, I don’t see any reason we couldn’t have civil marriages like the rest of the world. To me a sealing does not have to be the marriage ceremony, it is something extra and special that does not have an equivalent outside of the temple.
I am so wishing for this one-year policy to change today, Tuesday, September 18th. I’m getting married on Thursday and I want so badly to have our luncheon with its accompanying speeches and vow-exchanging to be the real deal so that my fiancé’s family and everyone in my family can be there and also so it can be more personal and not so processed.
Great points, Brent. The difference in treatment between the US and other countries alone would, I think, be sufficient argument for changing this policy.
But Jenn, as mentioned above, there was not a new relevatory claim replacing Joseph’s initial statement on marriage.
Jenn, as someone pointed out on FB, if JS didn’t know what was going on with the “new and everlasting covenant” by this time, then it raises some pretty serious questions re Fanny Alger. . . and then there is the fact that church leaders continued to treat the wedding and sealing differently for decades after Section 132 was received (it was received in 1843). . .I see it the same way you do, civil marriages should be public, the sealing should be the private religious ceremony. . .
Dang you to heck, Mitt Romney!
Love the way you sneaked in the special treatment for Ann Davies Romney.
I think the current policy is unlikely to change because the emphasis on temple marriages forces many parents to attend and pay tithing for at least a few months before their son or daughter is married. Benefit to the institution always trumps benefit–or even harm–to individuals.
My sister got married in the temple when I was 20 years old. I was a faithful member at the time, planning on and preparing for a mission. I was still discouraged from getting a temple recommend so I could be with my sister and best friend on the most important day of her life, because wanting to attend a wedding isn’t a ‘valid’ reason for receiving ones endowments. It’s more than personal choice that keeps loved ones out of the sealing room, it’s policy.
Father-of-the-bride pain doesn’t feel much better than mother-of-the-bride pain.
Painful part of an otherwise beautiful day.
Brent, thanks for the great info and history!
Brett, I TOLD him not to say mother-of-the-bride! ;) I guess he was just using it as a common phrase.
I have such terrible regrets for not having a civil ceremony that my mother could attend. I told myself exactly those three things you listed to make it ok. But if there was anything in this life I could undo, it would be that.
Ditto Blossom. My mom made my wedding dress, and that was her way of being involved and being “with me” there in the temple. It was wonderful of her and very special, but it would have been better to have her there with me rather than my mother-in-law, who I’ve never been very close with.
I would think that another alternative would be to be sealed and then have a big wedding after that. You could do it the next day even.
Yeah, it would just have to be a “fake” wedding because the temple sealing requires the marriage certificate. So whatever you did after that would just be for show/fun, whatever.
Or you could have an internet “priest/pastor” marry you. A friend from high school got married last year and that’s what she did. Her brother or brother-in-law just went online and got a license to marry them. ?
Our third daughter converted her future husband, so none of his family are members. They got married in the Sydney Temple and 2 days later we had a garden wedding with an ex biishop officiating, and then the reception. We live in Brisbane which is about 12 hours drive from the temple. There is now a temple in Brisbane. So another aspect of this ruling is that if you don’t have a temple near where you live even those with a recommend may not be able to get there.
Yes they were already legally married but his family and their friends felt like they were at the wedding, by attending the garden event. Our Bishop would not be involved but did allow us to use the cultural hall for the reception.
I may not have time at the moment to write articles, but I can squeeze in a few minutes to leave a comment.