NOM

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... TOmzRFNYrs

Yay!!!

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Monday that a civil marriage between a man and a woman will no longer necessitate waiting a year for that couple to be to married (or sealed) in a temple. The change means Latter-day Saint couples can look forward to a temple marriage as soon as their circumstances permit.

The new policy sets a single global standard for Latter-day Saints around the world. The Church has observed this practice for many years in more than half of the countries where the worldwide faith resides. In those countries, couples are required by law to marry civilly first.

Once again, they make no apologies for all of the people that their previous requirements hurt. I'm sorry for everyone who had to exclude loved ones or who has been excluded.

I will grant that this is good news overall. It also reduces the need for me to maintain a temple recommend for my one child most likely to get married in the temple.

I'm sure that the full temple marriage will continue to be the gold standard for Mormonism. But this will avoid a lot of hurt feelings when a convert gets married and excludes their family from the ceremony. They can still have the ceremony and just do a formal sealing later on. My next interest is how this will be relayed to the youth. I will probably be the bad guy to bring this up in my ward.

It's about time!!!....(to borrow an old LDS phrase) And, awesome news!

This is a good change that was going to happen eventually since some areas of the world already did it this way.

And as someone who did a civil marriage first and had to wait a year (which in hindsight I'm glad I did since it was a year without $#%$# garments), I can say this will alleviate a lot of stress on couples who would like to do it civilly but didn't like having to wait a year.

As has been pointed out - it's a good change that should've been done a long time ago, but the statement also makes clear that the church wants the marriages done in the temple still... so while it gives an opening to do it civilly, a civil marriage will carry that lovely TBM stigma if one spouse or the other cares about that.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 8:18 am I will grant that this is good news overall. It also reduces the need for me to maintain a temple recommend for my one child most likely to get married in the temple.

I'm sure that the full temple marriage will continue to be the gold standard for Mormonism. But this will avoid a lot of hurt feelings when a convert gets married and excludes their family from the ceremony. They can still have the ceremony and just do a formal sealing later on. My next interest is how this will be relayed to the youth. I will probably be the bad guy to bring this up in my ward.

I also wonder how this will be presented to the youth. I think at first, it'll still be emphasized that they only marry in the temple. But I honestly believe over time, it will become very appealing and acceptable for youth to have a beautiful wedding (where they can be walked down the aisle, bridesmaids and groomsmen, groom watching, etc.....and not have to cover their beautiful wedding gown with masonic garb....and so on) and then go later to get sealed.

I'm really hoping this will be the norm by the time my grandkids get married.


***************************

Hopefully, the non-TBMs in each family will no longer feel excluded. Have a wonderful civil marriage and then do a drive-thru at the nearest Temple.

Good news is good. This is good news.

I will immediately begin recommending that all wedding plans be made to have the wedding outside the temple, followed by an optional sealing afterwards at the sole discretion of the married couple.

I'm so glad to hear that the church is finally starting to receive revelation from us apostates! God is finally starting to see it our way on things we have been requesting for years.

Wait until the kids start getting married FIRST under "normal worldly" wedding conditions then going to the temple SECOND under crazy ass, no shoulder, no family, normal LDS wedding conditions.

I can see the announcements now!

Please join the Bride and Groom in wedding celebrations on Saturday May 4th at 6:00 PM at the Paradise Wedding Castle of Fantasy! The Bride and Groom are registered at Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Amazon.

The wedding will be followed by a Temple Sealing at the other Paradise Wedding Castle of Fantasy known as the San Diego Temple on Tuesday, May 7th at 7:45PM. Meet in the cafeteria afterwards for refreshments. Please bring your Mason Costume or rent one on site for $2.35, the cost of laundry services. All ward members with a current temple recommend are welcome.

The Bride and Groom are registered at Deseret Book, Beehive Clothing, and Food Storage 4 Less.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:30 am Wait until the kids start getting married FIRST under "normal worldly" wedding conditions then going to the temple SECOND under crazy ass, no shoulder, no family, normal LDS wedding conditions.

As someone who took this path, I can tell you without question that doing a 'normal' wedding (and it wasn't an expensive one, but it was a civil ceremony that we both really liked) and then going to the temple was something that was so jarring to me that it really did begin the slow burn out that took a good 3-4 years to finish.

I can't overstate how horrified I was by the whole thing, so I am so grateful that my family was not in the church so I could do a civil marriage first.

It's been just over a month since I stood outside and greeted my son and his new bride as they exited the temple, from a wedding that I was excluded from.

I am, of course, SO GLAD that this will no longer have to be the experience of non-member or inactive family members going forward. But I don't have words for the outrage and anger I have over the unnecessary pain and hurt of all of us who've already gone through it. (Did you know there is literally such a thing as "seeing red"? Until today I thought it was figurative). I'm so DONE with this organization -- was any explanation or apology or anything offered to accompany this announcement? As I said, I approve the change, but I'm physically shaking with anger over all that's been taken from me by this So-Called Church.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 8:18 am I will grant that this is good news overall. It also reduces the need for me to maintain a temple recommend for my one child most likely to get married in the temple.

And this is exactly why it took so long to make the change.

They know that people, particularly millennials, are not bowing the knee anymore, and they are reluctantly giving up their control mechanisms one at a time in an attempt to stop the bleeding. I think it's a day late and a dollar short, like the temple changes, but I too grant this is a good change.

You know who I feel bad for? Recently a new convert I know proposed to his girlfriend of several years after his one-year wait period, and low and behold, today there is no wait period. That poor dude.

This is good news. DW said the church is making it easier to leave the church.

Fifi de la Vergne wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:39 am It's been just over a month since I stood outside and greeted my son and his new bride as they exited the temple, from a wedding that I was excluded from.

I am, of course, SO GLAD that this will no longer have to be the experience of non-member or inactive family members going forward. But I don't have words for the outrage and anger I have over the unnecessary pain and hurt of all of us who've already gone through it. (Did you know there is literally such a thing as "seeing red"? Until today I thought it was figurative). I'm so DONE with this organization -- was any explanation or apology or anything offered to accompany this announcement? As I said, I approve the change, but I'm physically shaking with anger over all that's been taken from me by this So-Called Church.

And I also now feel bad for people like you! I'm so sorry this happened to you - they could have done this change so many years ago.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:41 am You know who I feel bad for? Recently a new convert I know proposed to his girlfriend of several years after his one-year wait period, and low and behold, today there is no wait period. That poor dude.

New converts still have to wait a year before a temple marriage so he probably wouldn't have been helped, so I guess that's good in a weird way for him.

Fifi de la Vergne wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:39 am It's been just over a month since I stood outside and greeted my son and his new bride as they exited the temple, from a wedding that I was excluded from.

This is awful, and sadly this might not change as much as we all want to think.

The church still encourages you to get married in the temple - this is only "authorized" if you really feel you *must* have a civil wedding.

So if your child is engaged to a super TBM person, they might insist on a temple wedding and sealing. Who knows.

It would be better if the church would just get out of the marriage business altogether.

This creates an unspoken dilemma of logistics.

Who will officiate a normal wedding the day before a temple sealing?

The Bishop? In the relief society room?

A "minister" at another church?

A "pastor" at a wedding chapel?

All things considered, the church isn't going to make it easy or accommodating. People will have to truly make it a secular event and then take it to the temple.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:51 am This creates an unspoken dilemma of logistics.

Who will officiate a normal wedding the day before a temple sealing?

The Bishop? In the relief society room?

The statement makes it seem fairly clear they want any civil ceremonies to be done in the LDS chapel, which I suppose makes sense considering they wouldn't want you doing it at a different church or in a courthouse.

We did ours outside which was great, but our plan B was the LDS chapel which I was terrified about because my entire side was non-LDS and I just didn't want that *plus* no photos would've been allowed unless we did it in another room which wasn't going to work either.

You're right - they're allowing this but they are not going to go out of their way to make it easy for anyone to do... but I think a lot of younger members will not have a problem finding another place they can have it at on their own now.

In the Chapel?

Does this mean the Anti Mormon rumors of sex on the altar in the temple have to be updated to include "allegedly" having sex on the Sacrament table in the Chapel?

These policy updates are complicated!