Latter-day Saint leaders eliminate yearlong wait period for temple sealing following civil marriage

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • AussieRagdoll Australia, 00
    May 14, 2019 10:41 p.m.

    @TAS - Tehachapi, CA

    As an Aussie who sang at the Sydney Temple dedication, I can tell you that your recollection about marriage in Australia, pre 1984 when the Sydney Temple was dedicated, is incorrect.
    Australians would be married civilly in Australia. Most on Saturdays. They would then travel to Temple View in New Zealand and were sealed there. You had a week to be sealed.

    As Australian law requires a marriage to be performed by someone legally licenced to do so, and to have two witnesses, Temple Sealings are legal marriages under Australian law as all Temple Sealers are Marriage Celebrants under Australian law. From the time of the Sydney Temple dedication, we have had to wait 12 mths if we chose to be married civilly... unless you lived too far from the Temple (which was most of the country), or you have been a member less than 12 mths.

    Even after the Sydney Temple was opened, those in Perth (on the other side of the country) continued to travel to Temple View to be sealed and endowed, because the cost of flying to NZ was actually cheaper than flying to Sydney.

  • Betsycow Billings, MT
    May 9, 2019 7:03 p.m.

    It is interesting reading the comments on this matter. My husband and I were married in June of 1967. He was a returned missionary who was the only member of his family. My family were all members. We then, had the choice of marrying civilly and then going to the temple within a few days, but the marriage was not to be consummated until after the temple sealing We chose to go straight to the temple to be married. My good friend from high school chose differently. She and her husband chose to be married civilly so her parents could attend their wedding. Then they went to the Manti Temple 7 days later to be sealed. This happened in June of 1966. I can remember when the church came out and said you had to wait a year to go to the temple if you were married civilly first. So, this is not the first time in a hundred years this has happened. I guess the difference is you are completely free to be married civilly and then choose to go to the temple even after the honeymoon. Another great change for the Saints. I am so happy to live in a time where a living prophet receives revelation on all these matters. The Church is moving forward at a very fast and exciting pace.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 9, 2019 7:42 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" that is nice, but Jesus has a response for that too. In Matthew 7:21-23 it says "21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

    Yes they may call themselves Christians, and may actually think they are, but Jesus knows their hearts and will judge them accordingly.

    Lets also look at it this way. Who is following the example of Jesus. The couple that gets married in the Temple even though some of their family can't enter the temple, or the family member who is resentful for decades or more because they couldn't go into the temple to witness a marriage?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2019 7:00 a.m.

    Here's a question - Will those who got married outside of the temple within the last 12 months be required to finish out their 1 year sealing probation penalty or will the Church allow them to be sealed immediately?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2019 1:10 a.m.

    "Yes there will be division, but only because some choose to follow Jesus and some choose not to."

    Many of the families left outside identify as Christians.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    May 8, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    "Such an inspired move."

    Not remotely! It is a common sense move for which thousands have been calling over many decades.

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    May 8, 2019 6:11 a.m.

    Again, a "Policy" that needed to be corrected long ago. Especially in light of the fact that this "Policy" was never universal.

    Mitt Romney married Ann in Detroit and then drove to S.L.C. to be sealed in the S.L. Temple, within a few days.

    This will create more unity and less heartache within families in the future, however, a bit late for many families.

    Couples have been getting around this by having "Pseudo Marriage Ceremonies" performed beforehand.

    President Nielson told us to buckle-up.

    With BYU Dean's of Colleges telling Valedictorians to "Go for it", I hope the Church sticks to just changing policy alone

  • mncougar Stillwater, MN
    May 7, 2019 5:46 p.m.

    Thank you, President Nelson, for adopting a policy that reflects the love of the gospel that should help unite families, rather than drive a wedge between them, as happened in my situation 38 years ago.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 7, 2019 9:45 a.m.

    To those who say that the church unites families, let me offer this explanation.

    The church wants to unite families for eternity through priesthood ordinances. You could replace the word unite with sealed together.

    The gospel of Christ will divide familes. See Luke 12:51, 53 which says "51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

    53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

    Yes there will be division, but only because some choose to follow Jesus and some choose not to.

  • mancan HC, UT
    May 7, 2019 8:47 a.m.

    The idea of a couple getting married by the bishop and then going to the temple the same day misses an important point. If the family gets left out of anything but the honeymoon on the wedding day, there is the feeling of pain that can occur, especially if one side gets to go into the temple while the others are left out in the parking lot of the temple. To any couple, I would say, go to the temple shortly after the honeymoon or whenever is easy to get the temple-worthy family together, but don't let anyone feel left out on the day they view as the most important.

  • mancan HC, UT
    May 7, 2019 8:46 a.m.

    Here is my two cents for the people who are suggesting that maybe the Church is on the way to doing away with performing civil weddings because of the fear that a gay couple will try to make a case if a bishop or temple sealer refused to perform a gay wedding. All churches still have the right of association and freedom of religious practice under the First Amendment. The notion that legalized gay marriage will lead to gays demanding churches and ministers to perform gay weddings against their religious practices is a fear tactic used by some in the "religious right". Only if a chapel or minister is performing weddings as a business do non-discrimination laws apply. So, I don't think the Church will stop performing legal weddings in the US, either in the temple or by bishops in the chapel.

  • Paysonite Payson, UT
    May 7, 2019 8:19 a.m.

    My wife’s parents were not members. She was the only daughter. We were first sealed in the temple and then our wonderful bishop performed a little ceremony at church where her father could walk her down the isle and we could exchange rings and kiss. It worked out very well for us. Ten years later my wife was sealed to her living parents and they to their parents. It was a very happy day.
    This policy is not new to Brazil where temple marriages are not recognized by the state. Therefore, members of the church would be married by a justice of the peace and then go to the temple on the same day and be sealed.
    I am grateful for a living prophet who leads the way in showing us how to make small course changes in our lives, through inspiration of The Spirit (revelation), that lead us toward perfection.

  • kranny utah, UT
    May 7, 2019 7:57 a.m.

    This is a positive change that helps eliminate the oft errant perception by too many that if a couple chose first to be married civilly, they weren't worthy to be married in the temple.

  • SpÄter73 Hughson, CA
    May 7, 2019 7:27 a.m.

    I received a call yesterday (5/6) from a young man from our ward saying that he and his fiancÉ were making a last minute change to their wedding plans. He is a convert. He served a faithful mission returning this past March. At first I was a bit concerned. He told me no need to be concerned and they are still being sealed the day after they are married civilly. This is a great blessing to his family, all of whom are nonmembers.

    It is also a great blessing to all those in countries who do not recognize the temple sealing as a valid legal marriage. I have no clue why the waiting period was instituted initially but am happy that it is in the past. Yet another policy change.

  • london_josh Lincoln, CA
    May 7, 2019 6:02 a.m.

    This eliminates so many major issues for people.

    Such an inspired move.

  • mancan HC, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:57 p.m.

    @Misty Mountain

    To answer your question about who can have temple ordinances done for them after their death, the Church teaches its members to do the ordinances for our family members without trying to judge whether or not they will accept the work. We just do the work for them and let them decide if they want to accept it and let the Lord judge if they have repented of the sins they committed in their mortal lifetime so that He can forgive them.

  • Mona Portland, OR
    May 6, 2019 10:39 p.m.

    I'll add my two cents here to many others who have experienced hurt because of family being excluded from their marriage. I too chose a temple marriage because that was expected of faithful active members (I'm a convert). Had we been able to be married civilly and then sealed soon after, my parents would perhaps have looked at the Church in a more favorable way. Because they had to wait outside while their oldest daughter married, it was decades before they could say anything positive about the Church.

    This is a huge change that I didn't see coming. I'm so happy that others won't have the negative experience of family being excluded on what should be a joyful day.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    May 6, 2019 8:35 p.m.

    I stand with the many others who have a testimony of President Nelson's calling. I was also equally convinced of the divine calling of each and every other president of the church. I do not think that previous prophets were just not doing a good job. Times change; which is why we continue to have prophets who succeed the one before.

    I may not completely understand why the policy was what it was or why it wasn't changed until now. I know that many families felt left out if they could not attend the temple ceremony, but I also saw profound growth and understanding in many families and friends who had to face such a challenge.

    Let's simply acknowledge the inspiration for this change in policy and avoid dwelling on bitterness from the past with an infinite array of why's and what if's. It is what it is and the Lord rewards each according to the circumstances of their day and the choices made accordingly.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    May 6, 2019 6:49 p.m.

    The Atheist - you do realize your opinion is not more right or justified than others. You choose to believe this was just some random one of cosmic accident we are here. Others believe otherwise. No need to constantly jab at people about their beliefs, anymore than you want to be poked at about your beliefs.

    When you can demonstrate or show spontaneous life happening from where there was none, I will agree you have proven your point - and science is on your side. Until then I will respect your right to believe in the unproven, as I expect you to respect my right to believe in the unprovable.

    It just seems right.

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2019 6:28 p.m.

    @ The Atheist
    “Regardless how much you wish it otherwise, such claims are mere superstition.”

    Thankfully, President and Dr Nelson stellar example shows that revelation is real.

  • BobP CA, 00
    May 6, 2019 6:26 p.m.

    Families involved in weddings can be most "persnickety". I was a several generations Mormons even then but my father was not temple worthy, my mother was a non member.

    My wife's parents were active members and they arranged for a counselor in the temple presidency to do the ceremony. My wife and I had both been endowed earlier so it was only the sealing that was being done.

    To my mother in law's horror just before the sealing the temple president came in called me by my first name, and asked if he could do the ceremony. As I had been his home teacher some years before I automatically said yes. My mother in law to be huffed but said nothing. We were married and on the way downstairs in the temple I tried to "make things better".

    She was a couple of steps above me so she patted my on the top of the head and said that I would grow up someday. I was 29, had a law degree and a mission completed.

    I rather assumed I was "grown up" alas I was wrong.

    Without thinking I had upstaged a social climber.

    The basics really are worthiness and human kindness. I would have liked the have had a ceremony my father and mother could have attended . . . so be it.

  • aggiefather Fulton, MO
    May 6, 2019 5:56 p.m.

    I thought this policy had already been changed. A couple of years ago a member of our ward mentioned in his Sacrament Meeting talk that he and his wife had enjoyed a lovely civil wedding (which included all their non-member friends and family) and then went to the temple the next day! Back in my day, because we had been advised to start out in "The Lord's Way" and because we were uncomfortable waiting a whole year, my wife and I opted to be married in the temple first. That choice deprived our parents of being with us. (The nearest temple was two states away; too far to ask family to make the drive just to wait out in the car.) Even my convert mother was unable to be included the temple because of the former church policy regarding no temple recommends for women married to non-members. This is a welcome change. The former policy caused a lot of misunderstanding and resentment in our families. This policy change will lead to a boom for LDS wedding planners.

  • UtahBruin Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 6, 2019 5:45 p.m.

    @Frozen Factuals

    I realize it said that other countries people didn’t have to wait. I can tell you for fact there are countries that you still must wait one year as declared by government. So not all countries have the same deal.

    @Rich in California

    Married 25 years ago, to have an actual ceremony. Sure I get it. But to allow a father to walk a bride into a reception hall, down a make shift isle. With the bride and groom sharing some personal vows in public with everyone there. Not a problem, and all get to be involved.

    @Thomas Paine

    Still not revelation. Big difference between taking something in prayer to the Lord, and speaking to the 12. Than declaring prophetic revelation. This was a simple policy change that they all felt good about and made a change. Answer to prayer approving a policy change, not revelation!

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    May 6, 2019 5:14 p.m.

    Laurels said "Currently, when a couple marries in the temple, the ceremony entails both the civil marriage & the sealing ordinance which creates the possibility of eternal marriage. I believe these two actions--the civil marriage & the eternal sealing of the couple--will be divided in the future.

    If that happens, all Church's officials currently licensed by the government to perform civil marriages (temple sealer, stake pres., mission pres., bishop, branch pres.), will no longer be able to provide that service."

    I don't think if they are divided that suddenly Latter-Day Saint leaders will be stripped of performing civil marriages; they just wouldn't be in the Temple. In many cases, the Temple is across the parking lot from the Stake Center so a "marriage" for 'time only' could take place in the Stake Center and then a short walk across the parking lot could accommodate an eternal "sealing." Then they could walk back to the Stake Center and hold a wedding reception.

    We place way too many things in pigeon holes and have trouble accepting any changes, at least not without an undue amount of speculation, as herein evidenced. Just accept the First Presidency's directive!

  • Seagull Suz Sandy, UT
    May 6, 2019 5:09 p.m.

    @utex-Riverton Ut
    I totally feel your pain and agree with your comments.

    I so wanted a civil ceremony in 1974 prior to a temple parents (Catholic father LDS Mother) were not able to attend...the look of sadness and disappointment on their faces while they waited in that sterile room on Temple Square haunts me to this day...the reasons given to me to not have a civil ceremony first were silly, controlling, and frankly demeaning!...I am so happy the change has been made!...happily married in the temple for 46 years and still feeling the sting of my parents missing the most important event in their parenting lives...I learned a huge lesson in paying attention to personal inspiration/revelation and acting on promptings from The Spirit...

  • AllenL Riverton, UT
    May 6, 2019 5:05 p.m.

    People must realize that marriage and sealing are separate rituals. Marriages should be for time-only, and all persons involved must realize this and accept this. Marriages can be performed anywhere that a person is legally authorized to perform such marriages.

    Sealings for eternity are performed only in temples since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church that practices that belief, and that church has authorized such sealings to be performed only in temples.

    Again, couples and those associated with the couples must realize that marriage is for time only. Sealings, not marriages, are for eternity and are performed only in temples.

    It takes time, though, for traditions to change. Lets follow the prophet in this.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    May 6, 2019 4:52 p.m.

    Thomas Paine - South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2019 3:44 p.m.
    @The Atheist, President Nelson has a very long history of using revelation to magnify his intelligence. His career as a heart surgeon shows the value of using revelation and intelligence."

    Regardless how much you wish it otherwise, such claims are mere superstition.

  • utex RIVERTON, UT
    May 6, 2019 4:14 p.m.

    I was excluded from 3 of my children's temple marriages. My family and children mean everything to me. I financially supported all 3 of these children when they chose to go on a mission for the Church even though I preferred that they not go. I supported their membership in the Church even though I didn't agree with the Church. When all 3 of those children chose to get married in the temple, my entire family, my wife, my other children, extended family, and even friends went into the temple while I waited in my car in the temple parking lot. Waiting in my car in the the temple parking lot while those children were married was probably the most difficult and painful experience in my life. I felt passionately at the time that while the Church claims to unite families, they actually were doing the opposite at one of the most important ceremonies in a loving parent's life - the marriage of one of their children. No matter what changes the Church makes now, I will forever be without that memory and bond. No loving parent should be excluded from the marriage of one of their children.

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2019 3:44 p.m.

    @The Atheist, President Nelson has a very long history of using revelation to magnify his intelligence. His career as a heart surgeon shows the value of using revelation and intelligence. Revelation comes to our minds and our hearts, and it builds on intelligence; revelation from God can help in all our endeavours.

  • GgaryP Provo, UT
    May 6, 2019 3:13 p.m.

    When my wife and I married in the Salt Lake Temple many years ago, neither my parents, nor my future mother-in-law, were able to attend the ceremony. My parents were non-members, and at that time, my mother-in-law had been excommunicated. But I believe my mother said it the best. She said: Gary, it would be very selfish of me to be upset that you were going to be married according to your faith just because I couldn't actually attend the ceremony. My future mother-in-law said essentially the exact same thing to my soon-to-be wife, without knowing what my mother had said to me . In effect my parents and future mother-in-law were granting their children our free agency to marry where we wanted to marry, and they obviously showed great love in choosing not to be upset. Heavenly Father gave all of his children, member and non-member alike, the responsibility to be in charge of their own feelings. As a parent , to be upset that a child has chosen to do something that would exclude a parent, to me, is just selfishness on the part of the parent.

  • Oh Really? Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 3:06 p.m.

    “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
    Joseph Smith, Jr.

    It seems we are finally returning to a day when people are allowed to “study it out in their mind” and make their own inspired choices, fitting their personal circumstances, with fewer things governed my sweeping policies affecting millions that were put in place to check the behavior of a few.

    It also seems we finally have a prophet who is acting like one, rather than as a processionary catepillar following policies put in place by others.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    May 6, 2019 3:04 p.m.

    I find it a little odd that a policy of exclusion is being spun as a change that will allow non-members to enjoy the days "festivities".

    They still cannot enter the Temple to see loved ones receive the sacrament. So, really nothing has changed.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    May 6, 2019 3:01 p.m.

    Reading Michael M's quote of Spencer Kimball, I'm a bit confused.

    I have a close friend whose wife died after a 50+ year marriage. One of his LDS neighbors was talking to him about Church doctrine and explained to him how he and Margaret, his now-deceased wife, could still be together forever. I'm assuming that he was referring to posthumously baptizing the wife and posthumously sealing them. But the example that Kimball gives (which not-too-nicely criticizes the mindset of the deceased couple) implies that the eternal marriage may not happen because the couple (allegedly) downplayed the issue of sealing while they were alive.

    But a couple who were not LDS certainly downplayed the issue of church membership and temple sealing. So who can be posthumously sealed and who can't? Can somebody clarify?

  • Reasonable Mormon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 2:57 p.m.

    Well said, @TXAfghanVet, but if I may tangentially quibble?

    The 3-fold mission of the church has actually been 4-fold for some years now, a change that is woefully forgotten in my opinion.

    That 4th fold is to Care for the Poor. Naturally. Ought to be first, really.

  • Liberal Mormon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 2:38 p.m.

    Holy cow, the comments on here really show just how anti-family this policy was. I'm glad they've ended it, and I'm sad it caused as much family conflict as it it.

    Also, this wasn't a consistent policy across the world. The headline should read:

    Latter-day Saint leaders eliminate yearlong wait period **select regions have** for temple sealing following civil marriage

  • Utah-Hawaii Alum CA, 00
    May 6, 2019 2:35 p.m.

    It is all about survival mode these days keeping their flock. LDS Leaders know the real truth about things and are very smart. The real world also knows what isn't true.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    May 6, 2019 1:28 p.m.

    I am impressed with President Russell M. Nelson. Unlike his past predecessors, he seems to be using his reason and intelligence instead of "revelation" and "inspiration" to make what would otherwise be common sense changes to the policies of the past.

    Keep up the good work, Mr. Nelson! We, Heathen, are watching and taking notes...

  • jam*n*man Syracuse, UT
    May 6, 2019 1:25 p.m.

    good move!

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 1:08 p.m.

    A good step in the direction of kindness. The old policy hurt too many families and made life harder than it needed to be for many newlyweds.

  • MANDB Orem, UT
    May 6, 2019 12:54 p.m.

    Groucho1970 is correct. I was married civilly on June 1, 1970 and then sealed in the Salt Lake Temple two weeks later. I applaud the Church's new policy. Bravo.

  • PhoenixAZ phoenix, AZ
    May 6, 2019 12:49 p.m.

    Great! Should have been done years and years ago.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    May 6, 2019 12:38 p.m.

    I've never understood why people get so worked up over other people's wedding ceremonies. Marriage is between the two people getting married. It's not about anybody but them. If my kid got married in some ceremony I wasn't able to attend for one reason or another, I'd say I love you and wish you the best, and leave it at that. Choosing to get offended and hate the church for it is what causes the division, not a 20-minute ceremony in the temple. I'm glad the point is moot now, but honestly I never understood what the big fuss was, or why some people love to create so much drama where there is none.

  • Rich in California Palo Alto, CA
    May 6, 2019 12:19 p.m.

    @Craig Clark: The old policy said that couples who would have needed to travel a long distance, unchaperoned (!), to a temple could be married civilly and then be sealed as soon as possible thereafter. Mitt and Ann Romney were married near Detroit, Michigan in 1969 (there was no temple nearby at that time). As far as I know, there was no special consideration obtained (or even required), and certainly not because of the Romneys being a "prominent LDS family".

    @UtahBruin: The old policy all but prohibited couples from having a civil wedding after a temple sealing. At one time, the general handbook actually said doing this would be a "mockery" of the temple ceremony and was not to be condoned under any circumstances. When my wife and I were married about 30 years ago, our sealer practically forced us to agree that we wouldn't even have a public ring exchange — something which, to be sure, has become much more commonly accepted since that time.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 11:58 a.m.

    With my parents' permission, I joined the Church as a teen. They paid for my mission. When I got engaged, they were thrilled..until they were told that they couldn't attend. e were from California and my wife wanted to get married in the St. George temple. My parents were so hurt, that they didn't even go. My parents felt betrayed by the Church after letting me join and then paying for my mission. My wife's family was in the sealing room. I had my best man, a former missionary companion. My parents never got over it. All of the missionary work I had done with my family and extended family was ruined. I had joked about having a quickie ceremony in Las Vegas on the way there so my family could attend. That was shot down. Had I known how hard my family was going to take it, I probably would have insisted or insisted on waiting the year.

    I have told other couples that if one was a convert with non-LDS family, they should wait the year to avoid the heart ache I experienced. I'm glad this is no longer necessary. I would have been happy had the policy only been changed for a spouse with non-LDS parents.

    This shows we REALLY ARE pro family.

  • TAS Tehachapi, CA
    May 6, 2019 11:50 a.m.

    When I was on a mission in Australia, before the temple in Sydney was built, couples had to fly to New Zealand and be married in a civil outside the temple then they were sealed in the temple the same day. They could not have a civil marriage in Australia, then fly to New Zealand and be sealed. If they were married in Australia in a civil marriage they had to wait a year. This change in policy is a good one.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    May 6, 2019 11:47 a.m.

    "that elaborate public wedding celebrations among Latter-day Saints...were turning the sacred temple sealing into an afterthought."

    No. The reason some people were having public weddings was so ALL their family, that they wanted at their wedding, could attend. Not excluding and dividing other family members. It's still a cruel policy, that hasn't changed. To disallow the parents of a bride or groom to see their child get married is divisive.
    In most other countries, "temple marriages" are not valid or recognized. Other religions invite all loved ones to attend the special day of the new couple.

  • TXAfghanVet Dallas, TX
    May 6, 2019 11:34 a.m.

    This truly is a great thing. I'm a little surprised about some of the judgmental things that I see posted. My family and my wife's family are both members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As such our endowed family members were able to be present for both our wedding and our sealing in the temple (yes, those are two separate things). But many of our younger siblings were made to wait in the lobby. As much as that pained me, I can only imagine the pain and resentment experienced by a parent who is not an endowed member as they are forced to sit in the lobby while they miss the marriage of a child.

    The three missions of the church, as articulated years ago are to proclaim the Gospel, perfect the Saints, and to redeem the dead. This new policy will make the non-member parent much more open and receptive to hear about their endowed child's new church, rather than resent that church for the fact that they missed the wedding.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 6, 2019 11:22 a.m.

    What appears to be the case is the 1 year policy was initiated about a century ago.

    It was not enforced on Spencer W. and Camilla Eyring Kimball though. I would have to look closely at dates but I think they married in 1921.

    However Arizona lacked a temple in 1921 and roads and cars of the time made travel to St. George difficult. This was before freeways.

    I do know the parents of our mission president here in Deteoit traveled from Southern California to Salt Lake City to get married before there was an LA Temple and left his maternal grandmother in the visitors center. They traveled by bus.

    My understanding is that there were exceptions for areas far from temples. How exactly they were determined and when or if they ever were fully phased out is an issue I can't answer.

  • Mayfair Logan, UT
    May 6, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    @Johnny Triumph "But will a Sealer still be allowed to civilly perform the marriage inside the Temples?"

    From the FAQ accompanying this article:
    “Where possible, couples should be encouraged to be simultaneously married and sealed in the temple."

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 6, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    Mitt Romney's 1969 marriage in the way it happened was not at all effected by his wife being a convert.

    Ann had been a member long enough to attend the temple. The issue was that the closest temple was Salt Lake City.

    Due to such extreme travel distances permission to marry and then travel to be sealed was routine. Romney was not getting special treatment.

    It was not until the Washington DC Temple was dedicated in 1974 that expecting members east of the Mississippi to marry in the temple made logistical sense.

    Even then for many it would involve great effort but we were blessed for our devotion over the next decade until Chicago and Atlanta got temples.

    I don't think this is prep for wiping out church officers doing marriages. Marrying unwed couples is so key to the baptismal process in the US that I just don't see giving up the option of bishops and branch presidents doing so at this time.

  • IQ92 hi, UT
    May 6, 2019 11:11 a.m.

    As humans are clever at finding loopholes, there certainly must be other changes that will accompany this one change.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    May 6, 2019 11:09 a.m.

    Another sensible policy change made by Church leaders. Good for them.

    It is like the heavy handed enforcement of BYU Honor code rules, it mostly results in more damage to peoples spiritual lives as well as to the public image of the church.

    Lastly, let people have the civil marriage ceremony that they want. The "counsel" to have a modest wedding ceremony is wise but it shouldnt be viewed that the church has any input in that at all. Dont mention it in the same article describing a Church Sealing policy.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 6, 2019 11:03 a.m.

    To attack the past policy is to fail to understand that God speaks to all in the language ghey need.

    The needs of the 1910s and 1920s made this policy wise at the time.

    To be fair since about 2002 not all civil marriages led to year olng waits. There was an exception if one or both of the new couple was less than a year from baptism.

    I sometimes fear we under value the power of sacrifice.

  • Johnny Triumph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    My Mother is a convert to the Church, she and my Dad married civilly in England and then were sealed after a year. When I was married all of my mother's family came to Utah from NYC and were understanding yet clearly not pleased with our choice to marry inside the Temple. They asked if there were waivers so they could go in and see the ceremony. But they never once made me feel badly for our choice, kudos to them. We had a sort of awkward ring exchange at our reception so they could participate in something. My wife's grandmother was in the same situation. I'm not sure, now, if we'd have a civil ceremony first, but at least it would have been nice to at least consider the options and the feelings of family members.

    I can't imagine the pain of a parent not being in attendance at a child's wedding, this is wonderful news where this is concerned!

  • jalapenochomper Albuquerque, NM
    May 6, 2019 10:55 a.m.

    Great news! I was sealed on one of the wettest days ever recorded in Arizona. As we left the temple for pictures, our smiles quickly tempered as we greeted the 'heathen' family members (I'm sure that's how they felt). Outside were sulking, soaking, cranky family and friends. If they were supposed to have a spiritual experience out there feeling excluded and miserable it was missed that day. I am blessed that for the most part they loved us enough to tolerate our unusual customs without complaining directly. It would have been nice to have the choice to allow them, the many loved family members that have left the faith, the honor and respect of celebrating a marriage in their culture. If anything, it would have made our sealing more special as we could have focused on it, and so much on those that were not there.

    For years we have been counseled to stick to the important basic gospel truths and avoid cultural distractions. I often chuckled at this counsel, thinking that most of the culture I saw came from the Church itself. I am very happy to see that many of these unnecessary cultural practices are being addressed.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:54 a.m.

    With the world and the Church going in opposite directions regarding Christian values I think the better policy would be to drop the name "temple marriage" altogether and change it to "temple sealing". It actually is a sealing of husband and wife for time and eternity through the priesthood according to the belief of Latter Day Saints so the Church would do well to step away from the term "marriage" simply because of gay marriage and the toxic politically correct perception issue there that some will certainly soon push for.

  • Johnny Triumph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:51 a.m.

    But will a Sealer still be allowed to civilly perform the marriage inside the Temples? Outside the US it had been the case that they were not authorized to perform the marriage ceremony, hence the civil ceremony then the the Temple ceremony after that

  • tahnl Francis, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:50 a.m.

    I have stood outside a temple once, and I swore at the time, only once and absolutely never again. That single experience totally turned my view on the Mormon 'church' and their 'teachings'.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:44 a.m.

    Finally. This was a much needed positive change and makes sense.

  • dotheroar Boise, ID
    May 6, 2019 10:22 a.m.

    Long, long , long, long overdue.
    Should never have been implemented to begin with.
    Thank God for President Nelson, He truely has vision outside the "box".

  • Yorkshire Logan, UT
    May 6, 2019 10:20 a.m.

    From Article: "that elaborate public wedding celebrations among Latter-day Saints...were turning the sacred temple sealing into an afterthought."

    Its like they have decided to let the the intent of peoples hearts convict them in front of the Lord. And let Him be the one to discern who is interested in Temple commitments and covenants as their top priority---- and who are more interested in 'elaborate wedding celebrations'....

    The Lord will bless in a different way those who are seeking something higher and more important than just the worldly 'elaborate'.

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    May 6, 2019 10:11 a.m.

    Those vitamin pills are powerful.

  • B-Real2 Saratoga Springs, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:58 a.m.

    My wife’s father was a pastor of another faith who had married 2 other daughters. In our case he wasn't even allowed in the Temple (obviously). It says in the New Testament and Nephi 12, that blessed is he that is willing to be persecuted for their belief.

    That’s how we got through that challenging time at marriage. Our sealing was bitter sweet. The sealing was lovely. The before and after we’re difficult to say the least. None of my wife’s family/extended family recognized our wedding. None attended the reception. Thankfully all these year and later things are MUCH better overall!

    Thank you, thank you, thank you, for making this change and giving families of multiple faiths a chance to start the new couples life by coming together, rather than dividing them.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    May 6, 2019 9:58 a.m.

    I only had to wait about 6 months (early 80s).

  • Laurels Sandy, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:58 a.m.

    I believe this announcement is paving the way for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to issue another announcement which will discontinue Church officials from performing any marriages.

    Currently, when a couple marries in the temple, the ceremony entails both the civil marriage & the sealing ordinance which creates the possibility of eternal marriage. I believe these two actions--the civil marriage & the eternal sealing of the couple--will be divided in the future.

    If that happens, all Church's officials currently licensed by the government to perform civil marriages (temple sealer, stake pres., mission pres., bishop, branch pres.), will no longer be able to provide that service.

    Government laws that define what constitutes a legal marriage vary across the world. Even before this new announcement, a 1-yr wait between the civil marriage & the temple sealing hasn't been required where the government doesn't allow clergy of the Church to perform marriage ceremonies.

    Dividing the civil aspect of marriage from the eternal sealing of that marriage is a method to both protect religious liberty as well as honor the laws of the land.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    May 6, 2019 9:50 a.m.

    First of all, I'm a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And second, I don't think this is being politically correct but, much the same as an article would say "John Smith is alleged to have committed a crime" instead of "John Smith Committed a crime" before being tried for it, would it have been more accurate to say "...they can be eligible for a temple sealing, an ordinance that members of the church believe allows a marriage to continue after death" rather than just flatly state that it does "...continue after death."

    I know you are all in Utah and it's church owned Utah paper, but I think there are reasons to believe that some non-believers might be reading the paper.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:50 a.m.

    " It says that this will most be felt in the US and Canada. I would have to say it will be more felt in international countries that do not recognize temple ceremonies. In many international countries, a couple attends the temple for endowments, gets married civilly and then waits a year. I would think it will be felt more internationally than here. I may be out of line"

    In the countries where temple ceremonies weren't recognized, you didn't have to wait a year since by default you had to get married civilly anyway so it's no change for them.

  • Go Utes Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:48 a.m.

    This is a really good idea. I did not have a problem with the way we've done things up to now, but my heart did ache for the situations where a couple could not have all family present (a common situation). What a wonderful move by the Church.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:46 a.m.

    Long overdue. The old policy was just an unnecessary family fight to have on what is supposed to be a special day.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    May 6, 2019 9:44 a.m.

    That year long wait often included a warning about temple work if one or both died during that year. Spencer W. Kimball was often quoted:

    "I remember an article in a local newspaper, telling of a young couple married in Salt Lake by a man who had only civil authority—no power beyond the grave. They had a brilliant wedding breakfast. They got into the car to travel to another city for an evening wedding reception, where hundreds of friends and relatives would come to wish them well. They did not reach their destination. There was no reception. A car accident took their lives. Their mortality was ended."

    "Yes, the family can go to the temple a year later. Yes, they can do the ordinance work for them. And the records will show it. But the question is, Will the young deceased couple accept the ordinances when they were of such little consequence to them while they lived? And more important than all else, do you think that God is going to be mocked? He is the God of the living, not of the dead. And they were dead, both physically and also, it would seem, spiritually. He has identified this ordinance as one to be done in mortality while you have your body and your spirit together."

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:42 a.m.

    It’s both Revelation and Policy Change. But as others have pointed out, this wasn’t a worldwide policy change. In many countries, couple already did get married civilly and had no wait to be sealed. It is a policy change for the US that came by revelation.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:36 a.m.

    This policy change may be only what it says. But to this observer, I have a feeling it is the first step toward eliminating "marriage" in the temple; and reserving the temple for "sealing" only.

    Yes, in the USA and many other countries where church leaders (of any church); have the authority to "marry" couples; for a long time the church has conducted both marriage and sealing at the same time in the temples; and thus members have often conflated the two terms.

    In countries where the church has no such authority to marry couples, they have had couples marry according to the laws of the land; and then soon after visit the temple for the sealing.

    Given the major changes to "marriage laws" in the United States and in other countries from the pushes by certain groups; I have long feared (okay fear is not the right denotation but the right colloquial phrase) the church may voluntarily give up temple marriage to remove the liability of lawsuits against so called "discrimination."

    This policy change seems an apt first step to doing just that.

  • UtahBruin Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:32 a.m.


    "Revelation or policy change?"

    Read the article, it clearly says policy change.



    On another note, I am not sure why people who had family members who were unable to attend. All you had to do was get sealed in the temple, and then have a wedding ceremony afterwards. No where has it ever been stated that this can't be done. It says that this will most be felt in the US and Canada. I would have to say it will be more felt in international countries that do not recognize temple ceremonies. In many international countries, a couple attends the temple for endowments, gets married civilly and then waits a year. I would think it will be felt more internationally than here. I may be out of line, and I am definitely not holier than thou. Ask any of my friends. But if a temple ceremony is what is truly desired, why would you need to conform so others could attend. My family did not get to attend my temple marriage either. And today I would do the same, be sealed first, and then work something out afterwards. To me its all about priority, but it is very much personal choice as well. This is just me, doesn't have to be you.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:29 a.m.

    'Revelation or policy change? Revelation or policy change?'

    Read the article. It answers that question.

    I am personally very happy to see this change. I was one of those who was affected by this. I met my wife at BYU, she a recent covert. We did the BYU thing, fell in love, and planned to get married in the DC temple. A few weeks before the planned date I got a call from my bishop to come to his office. He explained that he had been in contact with my future brides bishop, and that her family was extremely upset. Waiting in the lobby was not consistent with what they thought their daughters new faith should require them to do.

    Net net, between the four of us we petitioned SLC for an exception, which was denied. So we married civilly, and a year later got sealed in the Oakland temple.... where we then lived.

    Had we followed the Primary version, where we married in the temple directly, the damage to the relationship with her family would have been catastrophic. We were both Temple worthy, but we waited, and in the long term, her parents grew to understand our faith more, and became defenders of it.

    I am elated couples today don't have to make this choice anymore.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 6, 2019 9:26 a.m.

    Mitt Romney and his convert wife were married in a civil ceremony in 1969 and then flew to Salt Lake City where they were sealed in the Salt Lake temple the very next day. I presume this must have required special approval from Church authority. It's made me wonder if he was accorded special consideration because he came from a prominent LDS family. I don't know if that was the case but it does show that the one year waiting period was not absolute in all cases.

  • Autumn Meadow South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:14 a.m.

    Great news! So many people have family members who aren't able to attend a temple wedding, and they've had to make the heartbreaking decision of either marrying in the temple and excluding family members or waiting a year to get sealed. This new policy will make things better for so many families in the U.S. and Canada. I wish it had happened earlier.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    May 6, 2019 9:08 a.m.

    "The change will make it easier for some families who have struggled to balance temple marriage celebrations when some family members are not church members."

    Thank you - thank you - thank you. My wife's family could not attend our Temple Marriage, since they were not members of the church, and they were very upset. It really took a lot of joy out of what should have been a special day. Ever since that day, I've hoped the church would enact this policy.

    My future father-in-law asked why we couldn't have a civil ceremony so that he could give away his daughter, and then we get sealed later. We didn't want to wait a year to be sealed, so we didn't do that. He wasn't a happy camper. This new policy will help avoid that conflict.

  • Semi-PRO Brigham City, UT
    May 6, 2019 9:05 a.m.

    Revelation or policy change?

  • Goucho1970 ,
    May 6, 2019 9:03 a.m.

    I recall as a boy couples being married and then driving to Salt Lake City to the Temple from Northern California, prior to the Oakland Temple construction. The 1 year policy has not been around as long as indicated by the story. I've got a number of decade until I'm 100 years old.

  • BYU NATION Bountiful, UT
    May 6, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    The windows of Heaven have been opened and the Lord is truly revealing his will in this marvelous work!

    We are so blessed to have President Nelson as a Prophet of the Lord leading this church. The revelation continues and may Heavenly Father continue to speak his mind to our beloved prophet.