LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm**

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Couples may use chapels owned by the Church for these ceremonies.
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.

Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm**

Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Couples may use chapels owned by the Church for these ceremonies.
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.

We've had quite a few weddings take place in our chapel - then the reception was in the gym afterward. With one couple, the girl was 8 months pregnant (both she and the boy she was marrying were members). We've also had at least one wedding in our chapel where neither one of the couple were members, but the groom's family were members. There was quite the talk with that one, as the rumor was they were going to smuggle booze into the reception. With most couples who have been married in our chapel, one was a member, the other wasn't. We average about one wedding in our chapel per year here in our Iowa town.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm**

Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Couples may use chapels owned by the Church for these ceremonies.
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.

They were allowed in the cultural halls, but not the chapel. That may have changed in the past few years, but I know it was the case up until about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of any change, but they don't tell me everything.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:15 pm**

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.
They were allowed in the cultural halls, but not the chapel. That may have changed in the past few years, but I know it was the case up until about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of any change, but they don't tell me everything.

My wife and I were inactive members when we got married 25 years ago, and we were married in the Chapel and then sealed two years later in the Temple.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:17 pm**

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.
They were allowed in the cultural halls, but not the chapel. That may have changed in the past few years, but I know it was the case up until about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of any change, but they don't tell me everything.

That's interesting, and it makes me wonder - because we've had fairly regular weddings take place in our chapel the entire time we've lived here (31 years). Maybe we never got the memo? My husband and I have attended most of these weddings, and every one of them was officiated by the bishop or the stake president in the chapel - then the reception or dinner was held in the cultural hall/gym. So yeah, makes me wonder, lol.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 5:34 pm**

Well the good thing is that it is now clearly stated in the letter from the First Presidency. Chapels for weddings, as it should be.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 8:30 pm**

For civil marriages performed under Church authority, preferred place is in the home, simple and dignified, and also can take place in the chapel (no videoing or cameras in the chapel, though) or cultural hall or other meetinghouse room. No wedding March in the church building.

Posted: **May 6th, 2019, 8:38 pm**

BKColt wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 8:30 pm For civil marriages performed under Church authority, preferred place is in the home, simple and dignified, and also can take place in the chapel (no videoing or cameras in the chapel, though) or cultural hall or other meetinghouse room. No wedding March in the church building.

I have never heard this marriage at home thing before; where do you get the idea from?
And where did you get the idea that no recording is allowed in the chapel? I know no recording is permitted during sacrament meetings, but I have seen recordings take place during other meetings in chapels.

There's a TV series on TLS called 90 Day Fiance that has followed a couple of LDS couples where an American is marrying a foreigner on a K-1 visa. They had weddings or ring ceremonies in Relief Society rooms or cultural halls and had a wedding march so I dispute your third claim.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 5:10 pm**

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:43 pm
Yay! This will help families that have a lot of non-members. Glad the church is still going to allow civil marriages at church buildings.

I like this change. Keep the marriage civil, but the sealing sacred and eternal.
Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.
They were allowed in the cultural halls, but not the chapel. That may have changed in the past few years, but I know it was the case up until about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of any change, but they don't tell me everything.

I attended a wedding in a chapel in Utah in 2007. So at least 12 years.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 5:49 pm**

I have witnessed an actual wedding march in a real lds chapel circa 2014

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 9:15 pm**

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 10:30 am Wow. FINALLY. This never has made any sense, so happy it is corrected. Sorry to the millions of unnecessarily alienated non-Mormon family members. If we believed in apologies, we'd give you one.

Yes. I will offer it now.

Dad,
I’m so sorry despite you working so hard to provide for our family for so many years, and teaching us to work and so many good things - for being more nurturing than our dysfunctional mom, playing the role of both parents - despite all you did for us, I am so sorry 6 of your children allowed our church to come before you. You didn’t deserve to have to wait outside the temples each time - as if you weren’t good enough. Because of the church and other fanatic lds, you believed their lies that because you didn’t jump through the hoops to enter the temple, you are not “ worthy.” But I know better.

I know your heart - I know (because I heard you when) you prayed for each of us without guile - from a pure heart and I know that you love well - no matter if someone is a garbage man or a dentist - you treat them with love. God sees you in a much better light than anyone with superficial dogmatic, financial rules of worthiness ever could. I can’t go back, but I want to let you know how sorry I am that I dishonored you by going along with a church who uses the temple to make money and previously used the temple to break up families.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 10:20 pm**

Davka wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 5:10 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:10 pm
Sunain wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm

Yes, I agree that allowing weddings in the chapel is wonderful. I never liked that it wasn't allowed (in the US) before now.
Wait it wasn't allowed in the USA at all?

Been to a few here in Canada at church buildings, even a non-member wedding because it was a free venue. They just had to agree to keep the church's standards for music, beverages, ect. Wedding venues are the most expensive part of a wedding, so having a free venue keeps these civil marriages cheaper.
They were allowed in the cultural halls, but not the chapel. That may have changed in the past few years, but I know it was the case up until about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of any change, but they don't tell me everything.
I attended a wedding in a chapel in Utah in 2007. So at least 12 years.

I was married in the chapel in 2006. However, I know of others that married in the cultural hall instead.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 10:22 pm**

Thinker wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 10:30 am Wow. FINALLY. This never has made any sense, so happy it is corrected. Sorry to the millions of unnecessarily alienated non-Mormon family members. If we believed in apologies, we'd give you one.
Yes. I will offer it now.

Dad,
I’m so sorry despite you working so hard to provide for our family for so many years, and teaching us to work and so many good things - for being more nurturing than our dysfunctional mom, playing the role of both parents - despite all you did for us, I am so sorry 6 of your children allowed our church to come before you. You didn’t deserve to have to wait outside the temples each time - as if you weren’t good enough. Because of the church and other fanatic lds, you believed their lies that because you didn’t jump through the hoops to enter the temple, you are not “ worthy.” But I know better.

I know your heart - I know (because I heard you when) you prayed for each of us without guile - from a pure heart and I know that you love well - no matter if someone is a garbage man or a dentist - you treat them with love. God sees you in a much better light than anyone with superficial dogmatic, financial rules of worthiness ever could. I can’t go back, but I want to let you know how sorry I am that I dishonored you by going along with a church who uses the temple to make money and previously used the temple to break up families.

Thats a terrible apology letter. Best just to keep it to a sorry and leave the low balling out

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 10:28 pm**

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 4:48 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 12:51 pm Joseph Smith, THE Prophet of our dispensation taught that ALL marriages should be performed publicly -

SECTION CI.
MARRIAGE.
1 According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority....
I am glad to see the church taking a step back toward what Joseph taught. Secret weddings which exclude not only non-members but also the younger siblings of the couple to be married are really quite alien not just to the wider society, but also all to the experience of earlier generations of the Mormon faithful up until the early 20th century. Now if only the Brethren would restore the original Section 101 its entirety...

To be fair, couples were never forced to marry in the temple and always had a choice to be civilly married first then the temple later. Tons have done it that way and it worked out.

Restoring 101 would be refreshing, or better yet taking out parts of 132 that make us sound ridiculously weird.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 11:03 pm**

endlessismyname wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 1:00 pm Great news. My heart goes out to all those who were negatively affected by the previous policy. It must be a bittersweet day for them.

Having to wait outside really hurt all of my relatives. Now I'm even more thankful that the person I married turned out to be such an awful human being because it gives me the chance for a do-over. My plan will be to marry outside a temple with any family present who will come, go into a temple to be sealed, then have the reception.

This will be particularly meaningful to me because the sealing can be small. Since everybody had the opportunity to watch us marry, only a select few need be present for the sealing. I just hope she sees it that way.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 11:12 pm**

Weird how this policy change has been predicted on this forum for quite some time.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 11:34 pm**

I have never heard this marriage at home thing before; where do you get the idea from?
And where did you get the idea that no recording is allowed in the chapel? I know no recording is permitted during sacrament meetings, but I have seen recordings take place during other meetings in chapels.

FAQ and HB

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 12:45 am**

Anyone who has kept up on politics in the last decade knows this was a policy change to avoid legal issues with gay marriage. It was not something like God deciding we had reached a new stage of righteousness and it was time to allow this.

So on the issue of birth control and the Holy Handbook, you have many members who will say that issues relating to family and reproduction are between the couple and the Lord. Yet that was not the policy of the Church for over 150 years. Was the policy we see today inspiration or reflecting either public attitudes or political entities who could have caused trouble for the Church if not for such a policy change?

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 7:27 am**

Fiannan wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 12:45 am Was the policy we see today inspiration or reflecting either public attitudes or political entities who could have caused trouble for the Church if not for such a policy change?

This is cynical, but to suggest that these policies are God derived is unacceptable to me. That doesn't mean they are bad, but the policies that are absolutely contrary to Christ's teachings I'm comfortable saying are not inspired and cause a lot of damage. It was obviously a terrible policy.

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 4:55 pm**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 10:22 pm
Thinker wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 10:30 am Wow. FINALLY. This never has made any sense, so happy it is corrected. Sorry to the millions of unnecessarily alienated non-Mormon family members. If we believed in apologies, we'd give you one.
Yes. I will offer it now.

Dad,
I’m so sorry despite you working so hard to provide for our family for so many years, and teaching us to work and so many good things - for being more nurturing than our dysfunctional mom, playing the role of both parents - despite all you did for us, I am so sorry 6 of your children allowed our church to come before you. You didn’t deserve to have to wait outside the temples each time - as if you weren’t good enough. Because of the church and other fanatic lds, you believed their lies that because you didn’t jump through the hoops to enter the temple, you are not “ worthy.” But I know better.

I know your heart - I know (because I heard you when) you prayed for each of us without guile - from a pure heart and I know that you love well - no matter if someone is a garbage man or a dentist - you treat them with love. God sees you in a much better light than anyone with superficial dogmatic, financial rules of worthiness ever could. I can’t go back, but I want to let you know how sorry I am that I dishonored you by going along with a church who uses the temple to make money and previously used the temple to break up families.
Thats a terrible apology letter. Best just to keep it to a sorry and leave the low balling out

If there is anything stated you know to be untrue, in what I wrote, state what it is, if you can, rather than just put it down with name-calling. Since you haven’t done so, it seems you are unable to.

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm**

Thinker wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:55 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 10:22 pm
Thinker wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 10:30 am Wow. FINALLY. This never has made any sense, so happy it is corrected. Sorry to the millions of unnecessarily alienated non-Mormon family members. If we believed in apologies, we'd give you one.
Yes. I will offer it now.

Dad,
I’m so sorry despite you working so hard to provide for our family for so many years, and teaching us to work and so many good things - for being more nurturing than our dysfunctional mom, playing the role of both parents - despite all you did for us, I am so sorry 6 of your children allowed our church to come before you. You didn’t deserve to have to wait outside the temples each time - as if you weren’t good enough. Because of the church and other fanatic lds, you believed their lies that because you didn’t jump through the hoops to enter the temple, you are not “ worthy.” But I know better.

I know your heart - I know (because I heard you when) you prayed for each of us without guile - from a pure heart and I know that you love well - no matter if someone is a garbage man or a dentist - you treat them with love. God sees you in a much better light than anyone with superficial dogmatic, financial rules of worthiness ever could. I can’t go back, but I want to let you know how sorry I am that I dishonored you by going along with a church who uses the temple to make money and previously used the temple to break up families.
Thats a terrible apology letter. Best just to keep it to a sorry and leave the low balling out
If there is anything stated you know to be untrue, in what I wrote, state what it is, if you can, rather than just put it down with name-calling. Since you haven’t done so, it seems you are unable to.

Its proper form when apologizing to keep it focused on an apology only until the other person in the conversation is up for further discussion. Since this is a letter, its not a conversation thus a simple apology is fitting. Also, throwing in attacks at an institution that you claim did an injustice to you and your family member(s) but that you fully participated in looks pretty childish and immature. Take responsibility for YOUR actions of isolating YOUR family from YOUR wedding. Too harsh? Its the truth! Don't blame a church or put said church in a negative light when it was YOU who supported the action that harmed the feelings of your family.

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 7:56 pm**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 10:22 pm
Thinker wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 10:30 am Wow. FINALLY. This never has made any sense, so happy it is corrected. Sorry to the millions of unnecessarily alienated non-Mormon family members. If we believed in apologies, we'd give you one.
Yes. I will offer it now.

Dad,
I’m so sorry despite you working so hard to provide for our family for so many years, and teaching us to work and so many good things - for being more nurturing than our dysfunctional mom, playing the role of both parents - despite all you did for us, I am so sorry 6 of your children allowed our church to come before you. You didn’t deserve to have to wait outside the temples each time - as if you weren’t good enough. Because of the church and other fanatic lds, you believed their lies that because you didn’t jump through the hoops to enter the temple, you are not “ worthy.” But I know better.

I know your heart - I know (because I heard you when) you prayed for each of us without guile - from a pure heart and I know that you love well - no matter if someone is a garbage man or a dentist - you treat them with love. God sees you in a much better light than anyone with superficial dogmatic, financial rules of worthiness ever could. I can’t go back, but I want to let you know how sorry I am that I dishonored you by going along with a church who uses the temple to make money and previously used the temple to break up families.
Thats a terrible apology letter. Best just to keep it to a sorry and leave the low balling out

We expect passive-agressiveness from people, myself included, some more-so than others.

I think the thinker will be lecturing God about families being separated into various kingdoms in eternity.

Posted: **May 8th, 2019, 10:10 pm**

MBelieve,
I shared with my Dad and he was fine with it. And I shared it here because I know people who go on this forum who were treated badly in denying being part of a loved ones wedding. It was also for all of them.

Shadow,
I believe heaven & the afterlife aren’t too different from here... some can empathize (“visit”) other realms - and some can’t.

Posted: **May 9th, 2019, 10:35 pm**

BKColt wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 11:34 pm

I have never heard this marriage at home thing before; where do you get the idea from?
And where did you get the idea that no recording is allowed in the chapel? I know no recording is permitted during sacrament meetings, but I have seen recordings take place during other meetings in chapels.

FAQ and HB

I only have access to the handbook 1 that was accidentally released about a year and a half ago. That version merely says a wedding march is "inappropriate," not prohibited. And it may say that photography or videography is prohibited, but I have seen many meetings other than sacrament meetings recorded without any complaints.

Posted: **May 10th, 2019, 12:31 pm**

brianj wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 8:38 pm
BKColt wrote: ↑May 6th, 2019, 8:30 pm For civil marriages performed under Church authority, preferred place is in the home, simple and dignified, and also can take place in the chapel (no videoing or cameras in the chapel, though) or cultural hall or other meetinghouse room. No wedding March in the church building.
I have never heard this marriage at home thing before; where do you get the idea from?
And where did you get the idea that no recording is allowed in the chapel? I know no recording is permitted during sacrament meetings, but I have seen recordings take place during other meetings in chapels.

There's a TV series on TLS called 90 Day Fiance that has followed a couple of LDS couples where an American is marrying a foreigner on a K-1 visa. They had weddings or ring ceremonies in Relief Society rooms or cultural halls and had a wedding march so I dispute your third claim.

I was married at my mother's house in Orem by the bishop in 1998. My first husband was to a man from Mexico. We were married civilly and then sealed. (Until he decided he wanted to live a homosexual lifestyle 3 years later. Sealing was broken, and I was married and sealed to my now husband a few years later.)

LDS Freedom Forum

Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage

Re: Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage