4 Replies to “Episode 74: The One-Year Penalty on Temple Marriages”

  1. Not sure that you even realize that the photo you are using is copyrighted and that you are using it without the photographers permission (me).
    Not only is it offensive to the family in the photo, (that is how I found out about it). But you have also manipulated a photo without permission from me or the family involved, all very serious copyright infringement. Please remove immediately .

  2. What a great podcast and great courage to agitate for answers from our living oracles. Here’s 3 quick stories:

    At the time of my daughter’s wedding, I was not able to attend the temple. She was actually quite happy to have a civil wedding in the church, and said that she had always dreamed of a wedding where everyone could come and I could walk her down the aisle and give her away. It was a wonderful day, and I’m glad that any family and friends that wanted to attend could feel comfortable coming. Of course, the bishop kind of hijacked the ceremony (as we do in the church with weddings and funerals) and kind of spent way too much time talking about the temple and that in a year they could go and be sealed. In a way in seemed to be more important to him than the commitment and union that was happening then and there. After the year, I was able to go with my daughter, her husband and others to the temple to get the sealing.

    Another story. My close friend was divorced from his wife who had left him. He found a new partner and they decided to marry. They are both very good people, and frequent temple attenders. SO…even though both are worthy and go to the temple together, they had to wait one year because they wanted both families to be able to be at the wedding since there were important people to them that couldn’t attend a temple wedding.

    Final story. When my second daughter got married, they decided to do the temple ceremony wedding. My son in law’s father waited outside on the grounds waiting for all of us to come out so he could embrace his own son and his new bride. I’ve never had the conversation with him about this, but his demeanor and face told it all.

    One wonderful thing about today’s world with worldwide instantaneous communication is that this whole “policy” vs. “doctrine” thing is becoming more democratized. Where just a couple of decades ago, policies could effectively be kept quiet and regionalized, today the entire church can get information and there is no place to “hide” anymore for leadership. This “policy” is arcane. I believe that the intentions are probably good by the brethren as they perceive that starting a life together out of the temple doors may imbue couples with greater faithfulness, church attendance, and tithing dollars. However, the way that this is done in Europe makes much more sense. It is interesting to note that this is a fairly recent policy. I noted with interest that Mitt Romney and his wife were married civilly and then flew to SLC to be married in the temple by a high ranking GA within a couple of days.

    Finally, many church “doctrines” and policies came about through questions asked the leadership. As president Hinckley once said about certain changes that he said he didn’t see much agitation for change. I hope that the leadership will consider this proposal and the good will it will engender.

  3. Great podcast! I think this sounds like such a great project. Like the Barkers said, the one-year wait is clearly just a policy issue that the Church could change.

    Also, Lisa, the story about you having doubts when you were about to go to the temple and get married was fascinating. I think it’s interesting that you feel like the bishop decided it would be better to let you go with doubts than exclude you and maybe push you away from the Church. (Did I understand that right?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *