I converted at age 18. My parents allowed me to stamp this scarlet letter of Mormonism on my forehead, knowing it would bring exclusion and judgment from the general public. But they accepted me still. They have always supported me, even if they don’t agree with me. They watched me attend BYU and date only young men in the church. They must have known it was coming. After serving a mission in Chile I came home to “start my life” I stepped right onto the traditional LDS path to an eternal companionship. However my brother, mother, and father were not invited on that path. My aunts, uncles, cousins, grandpa, and best friends were there to serve the food, work at the reception, decorate and clean the church gym, but were not allowed in the wedding. Sure, I have some extended family who are members of the church. They were allowed in – this only widened the divide between the “can enter” and “cannots”. My paternal grandmother could have been in the temple with us, but she opted out so she could sit with my parents in the waiting room. All these years later I am so grateful for her mindfulness and compassion. I was in love, starting my marriage, and completely self absorbed. I wasn’t thinking of all those people sitting in the lobby not permitted to witness the most important vows of my life. I didn’t notice the pain of those family members around me who were excluded from this milestone. I did notice I was lonely in the bride’s room. I missed my mom.
It’s been 16 years since my wedding day. I’m a mother now and have a glimpse of how it would feel to sit outside my child’s wedding. I would HATE whatever organization it was that kept me away from my child’s special moment. Is that really the way the Church wants non-members to observe the rules? Because that’s the reality of how people feel. Honestly, I can’t believe my parents’ strength and composure that day. They were more Christ-like than I would have been in their situation. They are accepting, welcoming, and love me unconditionally. They did not judge me for the choice I made; to marry my husband in a church that did not welcome them. If I were to imagine Jesus Christ attending the Boise Temple that day, I am confident that He would have attended to my parents and family. Why would the Church, His Church, not attend to them by allowing family members to witness temple sealings? Or at the very least, allow converts to have an open ceremony the same day to
include family in such an important event. What better opportunity can be found to include non-members in LDS ordinances, sharing the Spirit instead of excluding them from it?
My situation is not unique. I was lonely on my wedding day and my family was excluded. Nothing about those feelings is in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. On my mission I attended a Chilean wedding. The young LDS couple married in the temple and married civilly. I envied their experience. Due to the law restrictions in Chile, they needed the civil ceremony for their marriage be legal. If I would have thought about it at the time I was planning my own special day, I should have had a “destination wedding” on the coast of Chile where my family and friends – regardless of their personal faith – could have been there. Then I could have immediately been sealed in the Santiago Temple. It would have been complete. If my children are ever in a situation where their fiancé’s family cannot attend the temple this will be my recommendation for them. I may even still recommend it, just so my parents can see their grandkids get married since they missed their daughter’s wedding.
-Emily
Unfortunately, “destination weddings” to foreign countries are not allowed for those members whose residence is in one of the 4 countries where a temple sealing is considered a legal marriage. No loophole.
Yes, in my opinion, it’s just plain mean.
It’s ok if one of the engaged is a resident in another country, say, where a US missionary goes back to marry someone in their foreign mission, then he’s not bound by the rules for the US, Canada etc.
I’m sorry you had that experience.
I faced this same situation almost 40 years ago when I joined the LDS Church. I have to say, my family was VERY understanding, especially since they traveled from California and Nevada to our marriage in the Salt Lake Temple and the reception in Provo. I also had friends who came from California who were not members. Yes, it was lonely getting dressed without a family member to be by my side, and why on earth my mother-in-law didn’t think to go through with me is strange. However, no one from my non-member family or friends said one single negative thing to me about being excluded from the sealing ceremony. Like you said, I was pretty self-absorbed at the time and now as a mother of 4 grown children, I know what it is like to be “on the outside”. We have a daughter, who is not active, who didn’t invite us to her wedding at Lake Meade because all of her friends would be drinking and partying and she though we would be uncomfortable. She actually got married when I was out of the state on a trip. It was painful for me when I found out, but I learned to get over it. I have mixed feelings. I do not expect the Church to allow non-members to attend the sacred sealing ceremony in the temple, but I do wish they would allow a civil ceremony AND a temple sealing. I would rather see young people get married civilly, not having to deal with the excruciating and nearly impossible task of remaining chaste for one year between baptism and temple marriage , then be sealed in the temple. I feel that if the newly baptized member is serious about their testimony and conversion, then waiting a year while being active in their ward isn’t going to make a difference in whether or not they end up being sealed. The only complication is if they have a child during this time, then that child is not born under the covenant. And if this couple gets married civilly and the convert really does not have a testimony, but was only joining in order to make their partner happy, then better that is discovered early on in their marriage before they take sacred a solemn covenants inside the temple. I also see so many young people marrying in the temple young, and their marriages don’t last a year anyway and then end up getting a temple divorce. Yes, we have visited European countries where the couple must be married civilly in order for the marriage to be legal, then the couple can marry in the temple. If I were to do it over again, I think I would have just gotten married civilly as soon as I was baptized, then have a temple sealing 12 months later. It is a delicate situation.
What we are asking for is the removal of the year wait period so kids will have a choice to get married civilly then get sealed in the temple the next day or the same day as is done in other countries. This way no one is excluded!
what more important please your family or having the blessings of the temple and the sealing.
Why not have both? By taking away the year wait, you don’t have to make this choice! It is a win win!
Of course the blessings are important. However, the main focus of this church is FAMILY. That does not only mean FAMILY that holds recommends, and is temple worthy, it means all of your family. Family is the main purpose and focus of this life. You cannot even have those blessings without family..recommend holders or not.
I just came across this website and think this is a great idea! How is it being received by the church? Does anyone know?
I think having the option of marrying civilly without the social stigma Mormons would automatically attach to it gives the bride and groom a choice. If the majority of their families are members–rolling it all into one is great for them. If not, having the civil ceremony makes everyone happy.
I personally think I wouldn’t ever go the same day to the temple after a civil ceremony. That day would be way too packed and it wouldn’t mean anything. And to have to go within a few days is difficult also because most couples want to go on a honeymoon. Giving them the option of going whenever they have the desire to makes it more special. Maybe that’s a month later, 3 mos. later, whatever. They are really 2 separate things and should be treated as such.
I too just came across this site. I am currently dating a girl from Idaho who was raised LDS. Though some of her family is not able to attend the temple, her parents are.
However, me being a convert, I am the only member in my family. With the current standing rule this means I will not be able to have anyone in my family attend my temple wedding. To me that is unacceptable! It is not the intention of Christ to divide families, or so the LDS church teaches. So why do they make someone choose to either be sealed or have their family present at their marriage? With this rule, someone is going to get hurt, either my family or my fiance.
I want my family, especially my mother, to be present when I make this promise to a woman that I love. I know it is my mother’s dream to see the day. I also want my friends to see how happy I am to have this woman in my life. But if that ends up being the decision than we will have to wait a year to be sealed. This speaks no logic. The one year waiting period seems to be in place for those whom may not be temple worthy. This is not my case. Both her and I are temple worthy, and are trying to stay that way. By being righteous in the eyes of God, the LDS church is saying we are unworthy to enter the House of the Lord.
I intend to seek answers from my church leaders, but at the same time this is very hard for me to accept. I will not get married without my family present, that is not fair to them. However, I do not feel it is fair for my future wife to have the pain of not being sealed in the temple for a year. This issue weighs greatly on my mind. I pray that I will get the answer.
I just came across this site and boy did it hit home. I am LDS and my husband is not. I raised our kids in the church with his full support. He helped me get them ready for church every Sunday and if there was ever a day they whined that they didn’t want to go to church he was the one that told them they had to go to church on Sunday. Our oldest is 26 and we are expecting an engagement and wedding this year. She will get married in the temple. My husband, as always is fully supportive and understands he can’t be there to see his daughter get married. even though it makes him incredibly sad. Many of those in his family, including his mother are not as understanding. My daughter wants to do a “ring ceremony” afterward so all the non-member family members (which is pretty much all on both sides of my and my husband’s family) can be part of something and her dad can walk her down the aisle. My husband however, is very against this. He says there is no point in him walking his married daughter down the aisle because it will be meaningless for him. I can’t say I disagree with him. I so wish the church would separate the legal marriage ceremony and the religious sealing, which really are two separate events. If a couple isn’t temple worthy when they are married civilly, then the church can make them wait the year. But, for couples who are temple worthy, it shouldn’t matter when they choose to do the eternal religious sealing ceremony. I don’t know how close the church is to approving this, but I pray it will be before my daughter gets married so that her dad, who has been so supportive her whole life, can walk his unmarried daughter down the aisle and give her away to the man she loves in front of all our family and friends and then be there outside the temple to great her after she has been sealed for all time and eternity.
My children are just hitting their teens and the marriage issue will likely cause our family a lot of pain and sadness if this rule doesn’t soften towards part-member families.
My husband has resigned from the church but I remain active and continue to raise our children in the church. It is very hard for my husband to support me in doing this because if they choose to marry in the templ he cannot be there. He of course is very frustrated with the churc policy on temple marriage, as am I. He would be so much more supportive in letting our children be active in the church if he knew that he could witness their marriage. This issue has been the main problem that we can’t resolve with our situation, it affects him, me, and our children daily in our lives on how we can live our faith freely. Our children shouldn’t have to feel like they need to choose between their dad or mom, but unfortunately the way it is right now, when our kids get married, no matter what type of wedding they choose, we will all be hurting either for ourselves or for our spouse, or our parents, or children. It would be so miraculous and wonderful for our family and of course many others if the church could change their policy. I’ve been praying for it everyday!
Well, here’s the problem. If you have a civil wedding first for those who cannot attend the temple wedding, won’t they still feel excluded from the most important part of the marriage, the sealing?
The sealing will mean nothing to them, because they are not members. Getting married is what they missed!