No more “time only” temple weddings

[Red Ryder]

It looks like President Nelson has discontinued the “For time only” temple marriages in order to focus the temple for “eternal marriages” only.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/0 ... t-leaders/

We anticipate that this change will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman.”

The latest temple policy revision, Bowman said, “is part of the growing desire to separate sealings from civil marriage, and to emphasize the sacramental and hence eternal elements of the former.”

Personally I think this is progress so that families aren’t excluded from any temple ceremony.

Baby steps...

[jfro18]

I think this is just to start making the transition to making the temple about eternity only weddings.

They already have to have civil weddings first in some countries, and there will be a point here where there will be laws against discriminating against LGBT weddings, so I assume this is getting prepared to switch from doing only "time and eternity weddings" to doing only "sealings" so they can get around any future LGBT discrimination laws.

[wtfluff]

Personally I think this is progress so that families aren’t excluded from any temple ceremony.

Baby steps...

I agree: This removes another option for self-righteous people to exclude "unworthy" others.

Too late for many, many people, but baby steps nonetheless.

[Red Ryder]

I think this is just to start making the transition to making the temple about eternity only weddings.

They already have to have civil weddings first in some countries, and there will be a point here where there will be laws against discriminating against LGBT weddings, so I assume this is getting prepared to switch from doing only "time and eternity weddings" to doing only "sealings" so they can get around any future LGBT discrimination laws.

Good point. They may not be able to stop same sex marriages, but they sure can prevent same sex religious “sealings”. I hadn’t thought of that.

I’m surprised they haven’t been sued yet for discriminating same sex couple from getting married in the temple.

[moksha]

These limited vows were meant mainly for widows, who were “sealed” to their deceased first spouses and could not marry again for eternity.

These so-called "widows" will now have to seek out some other place for a reputable marriage!


I thought churches were protected from being forced to do marriages that run against their principles by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Church has accrued a lot of ill will over the years from family members excluded from the marriage ceremonies of their LDS family members.

[glass shelf]

As much as I hate the temple, this feels like a step backwards to me. Instead of saying that both men and women can be sealed to more than one person, they said that previously sealed women who want to get remarried (and DO value the temple) aren't even able to hold their second wedding in the temple without the sealing bit.

[jfro18]

As much as I hate the temple, this feels like a step backwards to me. Instead of saying that both men and women can be sealed to more than one person, they said that previously sealed women who want to get remarried (and DO value the temple) aren't even able to hold their second wedding in the temple without the sealing bit.

They are the property of their first husband, so it's really quite understandable why they can't have a "time only" wedding to another man in the temple if you think about it through the eyes of the brethren. (to be clear, I'm being sarcastic)

[moksha]

There can be Celestial sister-wives, but not Celestial brother-husbands.

When you say Heavenly Mother to the Brethren, they will first want to clarify which Heavenly Mother you are inquiring about.

[alas]

This has actually been the policy in many of the Mormon Corridor temples. I think it was about 15 years ago when it was announced that for our temple district (Bountiful, Ut) there would be no time only weddings. I didn’t even know that it was still possible to have a time only wedding in any of the temples.

I wish they would do a better job of terminology. It is confusing. My pagan daughter uses the terminology of “my religious ceremony” and “my legal ceremony” for her two different wedding dates. Her first marriage (to a guy, so it didn’t last) we had at our home and did the bishop legal wedding and the pagan handfasting ceremony at the same ceremony. I am 90% sure that none of the Mormon relatives realized they had just attended a pagan ceremony. (Ack, witches) But her second marriage, California had just legalized gay marriage, so my spouse man and I put them in the back seat and drove to California, where we found the nearest justice of the piece and the spouse and I were witnesses for the quick ceremony, then we drove back to Utah for a drive we will never forget. You don’t expect snow conditions between St George and Las Vegas, but we were caught in a snow storm and coming up the Virgin River Gorge was about the nasties weather we have ever driven in. We got home to Hurricane, and turned on the news to see the condition of the accidents we had passed. Well, they had closed the gorge, probably two cars behind us, and people were stuck in the gorge and the highway patrol was taking people blankets on snow mobiles, because there was no way of getting 90 or so people up the canyon. They were there overnight. So, boy did we make it home in the nick of time.

[glass shelf]

As much as I hate the temple, this feels like a step backwards to me. Instead of saying that both men and women can be sealed to more than one person, they said that previously sealed women who want to get remarried (and DO value the temple) aren't even able to hold their second wedding in the temple without the sealing bit.

They are the property of their first husband, so it's really quite understandable why they can't have a "time only" wedding to another man in the temple if you think about it through the eyes of the brethren. (to be clear, I'm being sarcastic)

I totally know you were.

The LDS church and their BS made-up rules to keep people in their boxes just really frustrates me.

[1smartdodog]

I think RMN just likes tweaking things. I bet he sat as an apostle all those years thinking I could do a better job.

In reality with all his little tweaks nothing has changed. Power is still at the top. Women are out in the cold. Guilt and shame are the tools of choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alas]

I think RMN just likes tweaking things. I bet he sat as an apostle all those years thinking I could do a better job.

In reality with all his little tweaks nothing has changed. Power is still at the top. Women are out in the cold. Guilt and shame are the tools of choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mormon is still the word of choice to refer to people who are Mormon, because you just can’t say, “member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints” every time you want to refer to a Mormon. It is too long and cumbersome, and there are Mormons who belong to the other Mormon sects. Besides, Baptists don’t object to their nickname, Evangelicals don’t object to their nickname, and nobody but Nelson objected to Mormon’s nickname. There has to be a useable group name. So, if he doesn’t like to be called Mormon, he should suggest a one word replacement, not a whole sentence. I vote for Brighamites. So, some of his “changes” are not going to stick because they were stupid.

Two hour church might be shorter, but it is still boring and worthless. Besides, I suspect that was a change so that more wards can be crammed into one building, to save money on building ward buildings to pile up in his “rainy day account”.

And like I said before, this latest change is not really new, because my temple district was doing it 15 years ago.