As Peter’s post points out, the First Presidency today announced that it has ended the policy that couples who live in countries that allow the church to perform legally binding marriages in the temple, but who are married outside the temple in a civil ceremony, must wait at least a year after their civil wedding to be married in the temple.
The First Presidency letter includes this line in the third paragraph: “Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized.” Some who have read the letter are questioning whether this implies that in places where a licensed marriage is permitted in the temple, and in situations where “parents or immediate family members” would not be excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is not authorized.
I think that would be a bad misreading of the First Presidency’s letter. The idea is that by saying one thing is true, the First Presidency is implicitly also that the converse is not true–what lawyers would call the canon of expressio unius exclusion alterius. And that may be a useful guide for interpretation in some cases, but in this case, I think it would be inconsistent with the rest of the letter to read it this way.
The issue is whether the sentence quoted above sets up a standard–let’s call it the “parents or immediate family standard,” or for short, the PIF standard–that a couple must satisfy in order to take advantage of the new permissive policy. If it did, that would be a big deal to those couples who want to have a civil wedding followed by a temple sealing, but can’t satisfy that standard. For example, say a bride’s parents and immediate family members all hold temple recommends, but her best friend does not? Or a groom is an only child of parents who are now dead, but was raised by his uncle, who is not a member? We could come up with lots of examples, but the point is that there will be a greater-than-zero number of couples that may have compelling reasons to want to have a civil wedding ceremony followed by a sealing, but can’t satisfy the PIF standard. Are they permitted to go to the temple immediately, or do they have to wait? Does a bishop have discretion under this new policy to withhold a temple recommend where a couple choosing to have a civil marriage outside the temple without having satisfied the PIF standard?
I understand where the confusion comes from, and the church may issue additional clarifications, but based on the language of the letter, I think the answer is clearly that they do not have to wait even if they do not satisfy the PIF standard.
Context and Structure
The letter starts with a prefatory paragraph affirming the importance of the temple sealing ordinances. I think it’s pretty clear that the purpose of this prefatory language is simply to reassure readers who may have defended the old mandatory waiting policy on the basis of the importance of temple marriage, that what is to follow does not diminish that importance.
The next paragraph is what I would call the operative paragraph: “The policy to requiring couples who have been married civilly to wait one year before being sealed is now discontinued. Couples who have been married civilly may be sealed in the temple when they receive their temple recommends.”
The next paragraph, consistent with the reassurance given in the prefatory paragraph, gives bishops some guidance to continue to affirm that a sealing in the temple is an ideal to strive for: “Where possible, leaders should encourage couples to be both married and sealed in the temple.” Nevertheless, the instruction to encourage couples to be have their temple sealing also be their legally binding marriage ceremony has a limit: “Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized.”
The structure of the letter and the context of the line about “parents or immediate family members” thus frame this line as a limitation on the instruction to encourage couples to not have a separate civil ceremony. Not–crucially–as a limitation on the operative announcement that “[t]he policy to requiring couples who have been married civilly to wait one year before being sealed is now discontinued.” I think it would be a misreading of the letter, and inconsistent with that operative announcement, to interpret it to suggest that a couple that does not satisfy the parents or immediate family standard, is not permitted to have a temple sealing following their temple wedding, because the new policy is not ambiguous: “Couples who have been married civilly [without stating any limitation] may be sealed in the temple when they receive their temple recommends.”
Another way to express this would be like this:
1. The old policy is discontinued.
2. The new policy is that the only timeframe for a sealing following a civil ceremony is that it happen after the couple have a temple recommend.
3. We’re still emphasizing temple marriage.
3a. So bishops should encourage (not coerce or mandate) temple weddings without a separate civil ceremony whenever possible (but not impose waiting periods–see 1 and 2).
3b. Nevertheless (as a limitation to 3a) if a parent or close family member would be excluded, there is nothing wrong with having a civil ceremony first, so bishops don’t need to encourage a temple wedding without a separate civil ceremony in those cases.
Absurd Results
I think interpreting the letter any other way would also lead to absurd results.
Consider a bride with younger sisters that are too young to enter the temple. Under the letter of the new policy, having a temple wedding would result in the bride’s “immediate family members” being excluded from the temple. That means that the couple would therefore be “authorized” to have a civil marriage ceremony outside the temple followed by a sealing ceremony in the temple. It doesn’t make such sense, for example, to allow a separate civil ceremony where the bride’s three-year-old sister would be excluded and to disallow it where the bride’s non-member aunt with whom she has a close relationship, or her best friend of two decades would be excluded.
The enclosure with the letter confirms this conclusion: “[t]here is no specific time frame within which members should be sealed after being married civilly.” Nor should a bishop withhold a recommend just to “encourage” a couple to combine their civil marriage ceremony with their temple ceremony: “[p]riesthood leaders interview couples and provide temple recommends when the couple is both worthy and ready to be sealed in the temple.” And that is all that is required: “Worthy and prepared couples can be sealed as soon as circumstances permit.”
Conclusion
I of course am not claiming to have any ecclesiastical authority to make an authorized statement about the First Presidency’s intent here, but as somebody who knows a decent amount about how to read and interpret things written in the English language, I’m qualified to say what I think the best reading of the words on the page is. And I don’t think the words on the page of this letter give bishops discretion to withhold a recommend where a couple chooses to be married outside the temple without satisfying the PIF standard.
The overall thrust of the letter, as I read it, is recognize that the sensitive family issues that can arise when somebody is potentially excluded from a wedding are not issues that are well-served by tasking bishops to enforce bright-line rules.
Instead, they are issues that are better served by having bishops “encourage” the church’s ideal, but leaving the ultimate decision in the hands of the couple, who are in most cases going to be much more knowledgeable and able to navigate sensitive family issues than the bishops, who in many cases will only know the family of one half of the couple. But significantly, even that “encouragement” does not apply where a parent or other close family member would be excluded.
This is an important and welcome acknowledgment from the church that our relationships our family and friends–especially close family members–regardless of their membership or temple recommend status, are at as important as celebrating the ideal of temple marriage, and that serving one need not require disserving the other.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
I like your interpretation. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read the full letter you speak of, so I can’t draw the same conclusions yet. I have not seen a link to this letter on any news story. Did I miss it in the OP(s)? I keep seeing it quoted but cannot find the original.
One comment on this:
“I think interpreting the letter any other way would also lead to absurd results.”
Absurd results have not prevented bad policies in the past.
Rockwell, thanks for the comment. The link to the letter is in the second paragraph.
My bad – the link is obviously there. It wasn’t showing as a link on my phone. Thanks.
I think your reading is clearly correct. Here’s something else I noticed with respect to this paragraph
“Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized.”
Instead of focusing on the second clause, let’s focus for a moment on the first: “Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple . . .” That is obviously an allusion to existing church practice in much of the world (such as Europe or South America). But the two clauses are joined by an “or” and are therefore disjunctive. So if we read the first clause the same way some are suggestion we read the second clause, we’ve just completely wiped out the new policy altogether, because licensed marriages ARE permitted in the temple in the U.S. and Canada. But of course that is not what the 1P intended; otherwise, there simply is no new policy to even announce and nothing new for us to be talking about. Therefore, Jared’s reading is clearly the correct one.
Oh, interesting point, Kevin.
I’m wondering how many horny young LDS couples will quickly elope at the county courthouse under this new policy and plan a reception to accompany the sealing later.
I think the cultural pressure for a temple wedding, plus the official policy to encourage temple weddings where its feasible, would probably prevent most of that kind of thing, adano, but I guess it’s possible that some couples might do it.
Having now read the letter, I think that Jared is mostly right on his interpretation, but the question will be in the degree to which couples are “encouraged” to marry in the temple first rather than hold a civil ceremony. Every couple will now have to ask themselves if the attendance of certain people is important enough to hold civil ceremony.
And this doesn’t rule out a bit of leadership roulette. Rightly or not, almost certainly there will be couples pressured to forgo the civil ceremony.
They need to stop trying to split the baby–they’re creating horrible confusing mixed messages. They did this with the reversal of the exclusionary policy, stating that from now on sexual transgressions would be treated the same no matter whether the relationship was gay or straight, but emphasizing that gay marriage is still a “serious transgression” and then having several talks doubling down on the Proclamation on the Family and the “covenant path.”
FWIW, I appreciated Ardis’ writing on the original institution of the policy as a dissuasion from overblown weddings in favor of more modest sealings. I can see the wedding industrial complex just ratcheting up to take advantage of the Utah 2-step wedding! (have your wedding, THEN have ANOTHER reception following the sealing!)
And, honestly the civil weddings I have attended have been much more meaningful and spiritually focused than any of the sealings I’ve attended.
Thanks for careful parsing. Thoughts on extra burdens on bishops and church building usage if lots of folks take advantage of this?
Good question, Greg. I imagine it will vary widely.
When I got married (about 15 years ago) I was on active duty in the military. The process of adding a dependent spouse normally has some red tape associated with it, especially to start receiving a housing allowance and getting the new spouse enrolled for health benefits. Because I anticipated delays in that process, I asked my stake president if I could get special permission to have a courthouse wedding a few weeks in advance of the scheduled temple sealing (my then-fiancée-now-wife was totally on board with it). The SP, though, quickly shot it down. So we went ahead and did it the “correct” way (marriage and sealing at the same time). I had to shell out the money for a security deposit and rent on our first apartment from my own pocket, which was very difficult on a single enlisted man’s salary in an expensive city. I couldn’t get on the list for base housing without being legally married, so we had to make do for awhile in an off-base dump apartment in a rough neighborhood. My wife had to go to an inner-city Planned Parenthood clinic to get a pre-marital exam and birth control because she didn’t have insurance and couldn’t get access to my benefits yet. We couldn’t even start this process until 2 weeks after the actual wedding (when the marriage certificate was issued). It took over a month for the pay changes to take effect, and another month after that for health benefits to be turned on, then another month to get into decent housing.
My wife and I started our life together by enduring a series of administrative headaches that were completely avoidable. At the time, I just gritted my teeth and justified the frustration as the price I had to pay for “doing it right” (marrying in the temple). With today’s announcement, I’m happy for future married couples who won’t be hamstrung by ridiculous non-doctrinal policies, but still a bit resentful at what we had to deal with.
It seems to me that the only sway the church has now over whether a couple holds a civil ceremony before going to the temple or not rests in whether or not bishops and stake leaders can deny recommends for having a civil ceremony for ‘inappropriate’ reasons.
The only teeth in enforcing the “PIF standard” is in the policies around withholding a temple recommend.
Yeah, you’re right, Starfoxy. The guidance with the letter seems to suggest that they can’t deny recommends for that reason: “[p]riesthood leaders interview couples and provide temple recommends when the couple is both worthy and ready to be sealed in the temple.” I guess you could argue that disagreeing with your bishop’s advice not to separate the sealing from the wedding makes you not worthy and ready to be sealed in the temple, but that seems like a stretch to me.
I think you are on the money here, Jared.
Also, we had to exclude family members (from both sides) from attending our wedding. At the time, I felt righteously justified in doing so, as this is what I had been taught all my life. In hindsight, though, I realized it caused a lot of unnecessary pain, and damaged relationships in a way that never really healed.
Similar thing happened to my parents when they got married in the temple in the 1970s. My dad was a convert and the only member in his family. His parents were really offended by the exclusion, and never really got over it, and maintained a grudge against my mom (and the Church) for the rest of their lives. This certainly had adverse effects on their relationships with their grandchildren (me and my siblings) as well. Again, all totally unnecessary.
Is it possible for the Church to (fairly) establish a standard by which exceptions can be made for civil weddings? Short answer: no. Can you quantify how pissed off the excluded family members will be? How many years of strain on the family relationships going forward? Possible resentment toward the Church? The ambiguity of the announcement letter sets up possibilities for leadership roulette, which is especially problematic if the bride and groom have different sets of leaders, as is often the case.
That does sound like a stretch to me too, but I think that it’s going to happen fairly often at least to start out with. The idea that actively choosing a civil ceremony makes one selfish, worldly, or just ~wrong~ is pretty well baked into our culture for the time being. I think carving out the specific authorized case is an attempt to push us away from that aspect of our culture.
Great post, btw :)
Jared, I agree with your reading as the better reading on the text, in relation to what I understand as intent, and as avoidance of unjustifiable inconsistencies.
However, that’s not the whole story. Picture the case that weddings outside the temple followed by a separate sealing become commonplace. And a bishop who doesn’t like it (if only because that’s not how he grew up, or because he made some sacrifices to do it the old way) talking to a couple who seem to be more about the new social norm and not about friends and family. Does that bishop have room to coerce? To persuade? To withhold the recommends needed for the sealing? On the unstated basis that the couple isn’t following the guidance of their priesthood authority?
I’m afraid the short answer is that there is so much unreviewed discretion in the temple recommend process that (absent significant changes in that process) the bishop will always have persuasive, even coercive, power. It’s not unlike the discretion that resides in the district attorney in most legal regimes in the U.S. Almost impossible to stop. Almost impossible to review.
I’m wondering how many horny young LDS couples will quickly elope at the county courthouse under this new policy and plan a reception to accompany the sealing later.
Not sure why it would matter if couples did this or not. Plenty of horny people get married in the temple.
I think it’s much more likely that couples who want to have their non-member friends (or younger siblings) at (or in) their wedding will plan a civil ceremony/reception with a sealing to follow.
I am a little bit concerned about who will be interpreting the dignified and simple recommendation of the advice. Having once been a silly young woman of marriageable age, I can imagine wanting a Hawaiian evening beach wedding with no bishop present to disapprove of my tiki torch procession and sexy gown (pre-endowment) followed the next week by our temple sealing the week we return. I would not have thought anything amiss in such plans and wonder if others will feel the same. What exactly are the restrictions now (before today’s change) of the civil ceremony that precedes the temple sealings? Must the bishop or JP conduct it?
I think you’re wrong if you think that this policy change will be leveraged to include minor siblings in wedding ceremonies. Temple weddings with your little brother fidgeting in the foyer is still going to be the LDS standard for a long time.
The new policy will be geared to accommodating the non-LDS parents of a convert getting married in the temple. As for LDS people that just don’t have a temple recommend for whatever reason, the cultural pressure to marry in the temple will prevail and they’ll still be excluded.
I agree that at least for the next several years, temple weddings will be the norm when there are no non-LDS parents to exclude. It’s possible, though, that over time people might want to have weddings that include their non-LDS or not-endowed relatives and friends, or they might simply want to have weddings that include things that “normal” weddings have and temple weddings don’t (and can’t) have. (For example, my son was disappointed to learn that temple weddings don’t have any music. “Disappointed” may be the wrong word; what he actually said was, “That’s so lame.”) It might take a generation (or two), but it’s still more likely than an epidemic of horny Mormons storming the county courthouses.
Yeah, Christian. My argument in this post is that the language (and also the apparent intent) of this policy doesn’t give bishops the authority de jure, so to speak, to refuse a recommend for having a civil ceremony without satisfying the parents or immediate family standard, but you’re right, I think, that they’ll still have the de facto ability to do so.
Rebecca: yeah, I mean if they did have a quick civil ceremony just because they were horny, that wouldn’t be living up to the ideal of a temple wedding, but there’s literally nothing illicit, fron a chastity perspective, about that.
In my old age I’ve lost all patience for leader roulette. If a leader told me I couldn’t follow the new policy but had to get married in the temple, I’d say “Uh, no I don’t.” Then I’d plan the civil wedding I wanted at a non-LDS venue with a non-LDS officiant so the leader had no control over the ceremony whatsoever, and then I’d wait the year.
Rebecca and gst, yeah, I think in the short term the little brother that’s too young won’t be a reason to separate the civil and temple ceremonies, but that’s because of cultural pressure, not because of the rule. I mean, thre church could issue more guidance, but the language as it stands permits separating the ceremonies for little brothers. Whether local leaders will apply it literally and whether members will even ask is another matter, but I think Rebecca may be right that it could become more common in the long term. Only time will tell.
Will the bishops have discretion on determining this or will the couple simply be able to plan any civil ceremony they choose, then be sealed based on their possession of a temple recommend?
Is this something the bishops will even be involved in questioning or determining?
Diane, I imagine that in practice many (most?) couples wil involve their bishops in planning. And to the extent they want to have their civil ceremony performed at the church by the bishop, the bishop will ultimately have a good deal of control (whether he chooses to exercise it or not). But I don’t see anything in the first presidency letter that requires couples to have their civil ceremony at the church or performed by the bishop.
It isn’t the little brothers goofing off in the foyer I worry about. Let them decorate the get-a-way car and pull pranks. It is the teenage little sisters who obsess over weddings. And they should be included. Consider the youngest sister with 6 older brothers who all marry in the temple. Before, she would have attended NONE of their weddings. That isn’t right.
Another scenario. A rich but grouchy grandpa told the bishop what he really thinks years ago and hasn’t held a temple recommend since. The young couple wants to exclude him by only having a temple marriage which all other relatives can attend. Now they have no excuse to not have a civil wedding. Before, Grumps blames the church and the couple inherits a million dollars. Now, Grumps blames the couple and disinherits them. The church looses $100K in tithing. There is no end to the permutations.
I think this new policy is wonderful and it gives enough latitude that most any couple with a little creative thinking can have a wedding very close to ideal for them. Back in the 1980’s we got married in the temple early in the morning, and had a wedding brunch in the Lion House for immediate family (and one ex-boyfriend). Then a full blown Protestant style wedding in the afternoon which we called a “ring ceremony,” followed by a reception in the evening. Nobody was excluded from anything they didn’t want to attend since all but a couple of remote cousins had temple recommends. My wife wanted a traditional wedding and and a temple wedding. She got both. The father of the bride went on a coffee fast for a few weeks and ended that at the Lion house. That was about the only hardship for anyone.
Is there still a separate “Recommend for living ordinances”? (I’m about 10 years out of date in specific knowledge in this area.) If so, it significantly affects the process in that the bishop has an opportunity to consider these questions in the context of the sealing alone, independent of the general temple recommend status of the couple.
I’m pretty sure there’s a recommended for living ordinances still. But if your singles ward Bishop doesn’t want to sign off, show up to your married ward Bishop after your honeymoon, and have him sign off on it.
“Leaders should encourage couples to be both married and sealed in the temple.”
Does this mean “leaders should encourage both the marriage and sealing to be preformed (simultaneously) in the temple”?
Or does it mean “leaders should encourage couples to be married (possibly outside the temple) and also (possibly later) to be sealed in the temple”?
As I read the letter, I don’t see any restrictions on how elaborate, extravagant, expensive, Gentile-like, or outrageous the civil ceremony can be, or who officiates, or where it is held. If you’re civilly married, you can be sealed as soon as you get a recommend.
Am I correct in this? You can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, you can be married in a Baptist Church by a Baptist pastor, you can spend millions on skywriting, fireworks, and orchestras, and then you can go to the temple for your sealing. As long as you aren’t married in an LDS church or by a bishop, a wedding march should be okay.
What jader3rd said. If you move to a family ward and you’re not sealed, you go on a list of couples who are not sealed (if you have a leadership calling, it’s an automatically generated report) and I’m pretty sure most bishops would love to get you off of it ASAP. In that sense, couples totally have the power, not the bishops.
But it’s possible that, on a cultural level, that concept will take a few years for young couples to realize. I got married at 20, and while I’ve never regretted marrying my husband, there are several things about the process that I regret now, but I realize that I just went along with them at the time because I didn’t know anything different.
As m said early in the comments, the retreating from the POX also contained ambiguous language, that the law of chastity would apply equally to gay and straight, which I initially thought must mean that we would recognise gay marriages. They need a lawer in the 15, to present things clearly. Oaks?
Yhe other concern about this announcement, which I first saw on facebook, was the number of members claiming it as revelation, and God intervening. Having checked the announcement there is no mention of revelation ot God. Is this blasphemy, or taking the lords nome in vain, or something else?
It’s kinda perplexing to me that we’ve always strongly mandated temple wedding in lieu of the world’s ways of marrying. It wasn’t supposed to matter who could not attend, or any issues created by temple weddings – such things were considered badges of sacrificial honor to be married the right way in the right place at the right time. My husband and I wore our badges with satisfaction, if not quite joy as we had to exclude a great many members of our families, as well as close friends, which caused hurt, offense, and estrangements.
Yet when one of my sons fell in love, his fiancé was a convert of less than a year. So the Bishop and Stake President strongly encouraged them to marry civilly as quickly as possible, lest they get into trouble doing things they ought not to before marriage. Then a year later they were to be sealed. It was ok for them to have a worldly wedding first, and then the temple one later. All her family (which were not members) were able to attend their beautiful garden wedding, as well as my younger unmarried children and our relatives who were no longer active, or weren’t members. Friends from college and work were in attendance. Everyone was quite happy. My son and daughter-in-Law have a lovely video they watch on every anniversary. Further, some relationships that had drifted apart among distant relatives were renewed. A few fences were even mended along the way. For us, it was a lovely little season of great joy, especially when their sealing 14 months later included a newborn baby boy. They had two weddings, and they walk the covenant path, just like the other kids who married temple only.
That son had the least trauma and drama of all our children. The others were married in the temple, leaving many outside walking the grounds. There were arguments, tears, a couple of estrangements, and much effort spent doing damage control that wasn’t very successful. Quite a few people refused to spend money to fly to attend a reception, but not be able to witness the most important part. They thought it was a mockery. Each of those temple-wedding children have expressed that the son who married the new convert had the most beautiful wedding of all. And I concur, though I was too ashamed to admit it out loud for many, many years because it wasn’t an appropriate thing to say, think, or feel.
I think there was a sort of false pride in our old push to marry out of the world and in the temple. It often caused various types of hurt, contention and exclusion, even though we didn’t mean to do that. It caused a sort of arrogance. And I honestly can’t see any good purpose it served. Both types of weddings serve good and holy purposes in their uniquely gifted ways.
I’m very grateful for this change.
Agreed.
Yes, you need a living ordinance recommend. As Christian says, that means a bishop has the de facto ability to withhold a recommend if he doesn’t like the kind of civil ceremony the couple had, but as I read the letter, he would not be acting consistent with the policy to withhold a recommend for that reason if the couple are otherwise meeting the standards for having a temple recommend.
Left Field, in context I think is pretty clear that they mean leaders should encourage simultaneous weddings and sealings.
And you’re right, the letter doesn’t impose any limitations on the new policy related to the kind of civil ceremony. Separately, the church encourages simple weddings, but I don’t see anything that conditions the ability to be sealed immediately after a civil wedding on compliance with that.
GEOFF-AUS, I don’t think the letter is ambiguous. The supposed ambiguity comes, imo, from people not reading the whole thing.
It’s a policy change. The church isn’t claiming specific revelation for it, but it often claims the church leaders are generally guided by revelation. I don’t think it’s blasphemy, or taking the lord’s name in vain for members to have the opinion that this general claim of revelation includes this policy change.
Peter and RockiesGma, I totally agree.
I think this means bishops can now charge for weddings like the rest of the clergy.
I was very excited about the change! I like your ending comment Jared: “This is an important and welcome acknowledgment from the church that our relationships our family and friends…are at as important as celebrating the ideal of temple marriage, and that serving one need not require disserving the other.” I think that is the entire point. A marriage should be a celebration of two people coming together – those people having been formed and crafted through their lives by members and non-members alike. Speaking as a convert who’s parents/grandparents could only go to the reception and not the wedding – at that time they were still hurt that I had given up my Catholic upbringing to join the Church. This would have been a good “olive branch” then rather than another point of contention.
Great comment, Brian. Thanks for sharing that.
The Mormon social media influencers, Instagrammers and Pinteresters are going to set the trend for how this changes. They make millions and have millions of followers. Look at the 18-23 year old influencers and you’ll se how it will change. They aren’t ones to listen to the lectures on long garments, pure white gowns, or “modest” workout and swimsuit attire in their picture posts. For once, I’m so grateful for them because the change will happen front the bottom up.
Michael-
“The father of the bride went on a coffee fast for a few weeks and ended that at the Lion house. ”
This had me rolling!