If a couple decided to get married civilly first, I can’t see any reason why the church would not allow that and then allow them to be sealed just after, or something like that. I went to England on my mission and found that this is exactly what they have to do there. They are civilly married and then they go to the temple. They do this due to the local laws, but thats just my point… why can’t the couple be married civilly and then sealed in the temple afterwards?

When my wife and I were married/sealed in the temple, her grandmother and aunt were the only family on her side that could attend. I never thought about it much, but I recently had a conversation with my wife about it where she voiced her opinion that I now share, being that she can’t see how the church excludes family from one of the most important experiences in ones life due to the fact that they don’t have a temple recommend.

Everyone says how family oriented the church is, but I have issues with that. I see a lot of problems that the church community puts on the family, especially after seeing things from my wifes perspective. I never thought about it until I started my own family and decided that I want my kids to have a better family life than my own. Thats to say that I want to improve on the good upbringing I had by making it even better for my children.

Has anyone heard of a couple, in the United States, where they have had a civil marriage and then sealed in the temple, probably on the same day, so that their family could attend?

/paranoidfr33k

/paranoidfr33k

I think the current way of doing things is a product of that’s-how-it’s-done thinking plus an attitude that getting married civilly first shows that God isn’t your true priority. I think I’ve also heard some speculation that if you had the chance to be sealed but choose to be married civilly first and die before you make it to the temple then God will tell you that you’re SOL. Pretty petty in my book.

If the LDS church were truly family oriented, its leaders would encourage couples with family or friends who couldn’t attend a temple sealing to get married outside the temple first where all can witness it, then be sealed afterwards, just as you suggest.

I usually think of the temple requirements in terms of social control. I think that they do more than almost any other social mechanism to keep people in the Church who would otherwise leave (I’d like to think that it backfired with us, because now that we’ve left, I’m sure that it’s a subconscious motivation to influence our children from becoming active again). I know a number of members who are minimally active, pay tithing, and keep quiet in church despite their moral or cognitive issues so that they can attend their children’s weddings. After reading this, I am going to add the social violence element to it. You hit the nail on the head with the word “extortion.”

One more thought: the final straw, and the one that helped Jana to cross over the line, was knowing that even as a faithful member, my daughter could not experience the same rites of passage as my son. The thought experiment can apply in small part to women in the Church.

While it is nice that the couple is trying to be inclusive with a ring ceremony, the fact that they are already married at that point still rankles.

John R,

(cool favicon, BTW)

It’s an important point. Ritual violence not only happens to non-Mormons or Mormons who don’t toe the line, but also to faithful, obedient Mormons who were born with the wrong complement of chromosomes. The Mormon God—the Abrahamic God really—sure seems to put a lot of importance on the state of your DNA.

I agree.