The LDS church teaches that a marriage can be "sealed" within LDS temples so that they last for time and eternity. Not only is this meant to unify a couple in the afterlife, but it's an essential step in gaining the greatest degree of glory.In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1–4).
Because only LDS members who hold a temple recommend are permitted to enter the temple, oftentimes family members or friends are excluding from the wedding. This can create resentment and disappointment.
There is nothing wrong with the LDS church declaring that certain ceremonies are sacred and unsuitable for anyone but worthy LDS members. This is their right and freedom.
The problem is that the wedding is not one of those religiously protected rites.
The "sealing" is the sacred ceremony that must take place in the temple. Weddings, in and of themselves, can be performed almost anywhere by almost anyone. In the eyes of the law, an LDS wedding is exactly the same as a Baptist, a Catholic, or an atheist wedding. It doesn't matter if the marriage is performed by a temple president or by Elvis at a drive-thru chapel in Vegas.
It's the sealing ceremony that is special and sacred to LDS members. This is what Mormons believe elevates their union to something above and beyond any mortal "til death do you part" wedding.
By rolling the wedding and sealing together into the same ceremony, the LDS church has essentially co-opted the civil marriage and turned it into part of their religious practice. It's doctrinally unnecessary and excludes non-Mormons and non-temple recommend holders from being a part of the wedding.
This practice may help explain why the LDS church is so heavily involved in the fight against gay marriage. For many Mormons, the difference between a civil marriage and a religious ceremony has become nonexistent.
Mormons may think that a marriage within the temple is more meaningful or more spiritual, but this is a personal decision. The church may also feel that a wedding within the temple is preferable, but it is not required. According to the doctrine, it's only the sealing that matters.
We know this the case because the LDS church performs proxy sealings for those who have died. Those existing marriages are sealed. Similarly, married couples who later convert to the church can be sealed in the temple.
But even more so, the church does not insist on weddings within the temple in other countries.
In some countries, the law requires that a wedding be performed by a public official and/or in a public setting. In these areas, the couple can be wed with all of their friends and family present, and then at the earliest opportunity go to an LDS temple to be sealed.
This is not permitted in the United States. In the U.S., the law permits a wedding to be performed within the temple, and so church policy virtually forces American LDS members to do it there. They do this by making members who get married outside the temple wait a full year before they can be sealed.
No particular reason is given for this waiting period, but many believe it's meant for repentance. Many assume that if a couple is married outside of the temple, it's because they were unworthy to do it in the temple. The sense is that if you have the ability to get married in the temple, but choose not to, it must be because you've done something wrong.
But this is not necessarily the case. It's standard policy that all couples have to wait, regardless of their personal situation. So, considering the importance of being sealed, most LDS couples choose to get married and sealed in the temple, even if it means that non-member family must wait outside, excluded.
Church policies do allow for a simple ring ceremony that can take place after the wedding. This is meant to be an event that friends and family can attend. For some, this token ceremony couldn't possibly be enough. They've been prevented from being part of the actual wedding, and a ring ceremony is a sorry substitute.
Few people would object to waiting outside during a religious sealing ceremony, if this is what the couple wishes. The frustration and hurt comes from the fact that the church has taken the civil wedding ceremony and is forcing it to take place within temple walls.
Some comments found online:
I recall many happy moments back then, and I don't think there is a Dad anywhere who was more proud of his son than I was on his wedding day. But I will also never forget the feeling of devastating loneliness as I drove through the residential areas surrounding the Timpanogas LDS temple, knowing that my son was getting married without me nearby to support him.
It still breaks my heart that my mom had to sit outside the temple when we got married, along with Mark's little sister and three of my best girlfriends.
ALL of my daughter's family will be sitting outside. She will be in there alone. Her father, mother, and twin brother will not be there. Her favorite cousins (more like brothers and sister) will not be there. The only one in my family who will be worthy is my sister--who I no longer speak to--and my daughter said she won't be invited. I know it will be difficult--but I won't be alone--she will. THAT is what I wish she would see.
The temple was full of people who hardly knew my granddaughter, but her parents (who supported her, paid for the wedding etc. )her twin sister, brother, grandparents, friends set outside. The ring ceremony was really an insult added to injury.
When I tell people about standing outside in the Atlanta rain while my daughter got married, they just stare like they're waiting for the punchline of the joke.
Prior to our daughter’s conversion and temple marriage you would never have heard a negative comment about Mormons or the Mormon Church in our home. All that changed the day we were told to take our breaking hearts and wait outside while the daughter we love and cherish was married to her wonderful husband.
Twenty years of parenting was dismissed as irrelevant by the church that claims to support families. The damage done to church’s image extends to the opinions of our family and friends. Because of our experience, none of them will ever let a Mormon missionary into their home. They want nothing to do with a church that takes a family event that should only be about love, unity, and joy but instead interjects judgment, division, and pain.
There is a tendency for some Mormons to shift the blame onto those who can't enter the temple. "If you wanted to attend the wedding, then you should have gotten your temple recommend. Or converted. (?)" This kind of sentiment is a sign that some Mormons feel they now own the wedding, and if anyone else wants a part of it, they have to play by Mormon rules.
This is true of LDS religious ceremonies, like the sealing.
This is not true of civil contracts, like a marriage.
Obviously, if a couple wants to perform the wedding inside the temple, they should have that option.
But there's no reason that the church couldn't change its policy, do away with the mandatory one-year waiting period, and do what is already being done in other countries:
Allow a couple the option to get married and enjoy the wedding with their friends and family.
Then afterwards, get sealed in the temple for "time and all eternity" according to their religious beliefs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: Examiner