Sorry, Your Family & Friends Can’t Come to Your Mormon Wedding

Los Angeles LDS Temple

When I was the bishop, the ecclesiatical leader, of a single adult congregation of the LDS Church in Glendale, California, I was asked to do a "ring ceremony" for a couple that were married earlier in the day in the Los Angeles LDS Temple.  It consisted of the newlyweds and their bridal party entering the chapel area of an LDS Sunday meeting house, as bridal parties usually do to the music of the Lohengrin Wedding March, I welcoming the guests, I being kind of a master of ceremonies and offering very brief advice to the couple, overseeing the vows each offered to their new partner, and overseeing the exchange of rings.

For many Californian members of the LDS Church, this serves as kind of a "consolation gift" to family members and loved ones who are not members of the Church, or who are members but who voluntarily do not enter into the Temple because of worthiness issues, or who are too young.

Besides the honor of being asked to participate with this particular bride and groom on their special day, my excitement was tempered by the knowledge that non-member family could not be present at the real wedding ceremony.  It seemed a shame to me.  I had heard stories about, and had personally witnessed, how challenging it was to not allow loved ones, particularly parents who were not members of the Church and were attempting to accept their child becoming a member of it, to be excluded on this momentous day. Now I was in the middle of this dilemma.  It seemed so exclusionary, so off-putting to non-members at a time when the Church hungered for acceptance and pushed for missionary work among family and friends.  

However, I simply never questioned the issue; I simply relegated it to the shelf of "that's just the way things are."  

I also didn't question the idea that if a couple decided to not get married in the temple; they needed to wait a year before doing so. That too went on that shelf. 

I embraced the belief, and still do today, that if one or both spouses were newly baptized, it was a prudent practice to have them wait a year before making the sacred promises or covenants that I believe in that are made in the Temple.  But in some cases, the bride and groom are not new members, but must still wait a year. 

Also, there is a definite stigma associated with choosing not to originally marry in the Temple.  It is widely thought in most congregations that if a couple do not at first marry there and are long-time members, they have engaged in pre-marital sex and as such are not worthy to enter.   Ironically, not every worthy couple chooses to be married in the Temple because they may want to have their non-member loved ones participate in the ceremony. But they likely will be gossiped about in the congregation by unknowing, uncaring members.  And they still must wait a year...BUT NOT EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD!

It seems very ironic that Church policy on this issue differs in different parts of the world.  In the US, Canada and South Africa, where the governments have empowered Church members with civic powers to marry people, couples who choose to not marry originally in the Temple must wait a year.  They are compelled to make a choice of whether to have only members at the ceremony or not be married in the Temple.

But in the United Kingdom, for example, where the government does not empower church members to marry, LDS couples are required to be married civically outside of the Temple, a marriage in which all loved ones can participate.  The couple then enter the Temple later in the day where they are able to "be sealed for time and eternity" and which is attended only by members.  Such temples in the UK will even go so far as to make the temple available as late as 10 p.m. to accomodate the two services.

Micah Nickolaisen, a professional LDS photographer in the Phoenix area, has observed how painful these matters often are for young Mormon couples. He stated recently, “If that pain is justified, if that’s what God wants, if there’s some doctrinal or theological reason that it has to be that way, then maybe that’s the price we have to pay, but it seems so pointless. What are we accomplishing except creating distance from us and the people we’re trying to influence and put on a good impression for?”

Consequently, some faithful Mormons are asking leaders to reconsider the policy of forcing couples wherever possible to wait a year for the sealing if they also have a civil ceremony. A new website, Family First Weddings, collects statements about the policy and encourages members to write respectful letters to the church hierarchy explaining how the policy hurts them and their relationships. I went to the website and copied their mission statement, which is found below:

Our mission is to raise awareness of a current policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that discourages couples from having a civil marriage prior to a temple sealing. This policy makes a temple sealing unavailable for one year to any couple that decides to have a civil wedding first. We want to see this policy changed.

Our goal is to urge people to carefully ponder this policy with open hearts and determine whether or not they would support a change. We invite all who would like to see a change to join us by writing a letter or by sharing your wedding story.  We are collecting emails, stories, and letters to help format a letter that will be sent, through official channels, to our leaders in Salt Lake City. We will be also passing along the letters and stories that will be part of a packet that will accompany the letter.

Subsequent to my research on this matter as well as looking into my heart, I am choosing to support a change in policy, at least for the US, Canada and South Africa, promoted by Family First Weddings.  I will ask the leadership of the Church along with others to embrace a Church-wide policy (I believe this issue is not doctrinal in any way) similar to what now exists in the UK, to allow there to be a choice for LDS couples.  I would like non-LDS family and friends to not be excluded on this very special day, and would like for them to walk away from the events of the day without any possible negative feelings about the Church.  In the doctrine of the Church, families are always first.  Family issues can even trump meeting attendance and acceptance of responsibilities, for ecample.  Why not promote the family first concept on this day when new families are first begun?

This marks a definite transition in my thoughts and feelings on this matter.  I hope that a change is forthcoming.