Doctrine always the same?

[tjohnson]

Hi,

Having just recently discovered that people in Mexico (and other countries) are able to have a civil marriage and then immediately after the ceremony, go into the temple and be sealed.

The church doctrine for people in the USA says you have to wait 1 year after a civil marriage before you can be sealed.

Can someone explain to me how the church can claim "the doctrine is the same all over and does not change"??? :rolleyes:

[mutleydog]

Hi,

Having just recently discovered that people in Mexico (and other countries) are able to have a civil marriage and then immediately after the ceremony, go into the temple and be sealed.

The church doctrine for people in the USA says you have to wait 1 year after a civil marriage before you can be sealed.

Can someone explain to me how the church can claim "the doctrine is the same all over and does not change"??? :rolleyes:

As my understanding goes......for quite a few countries, Mexico, UK etc. the temple marriage alone is not recognised by law. Hence, a civil marriage is always conducted before hand to make a marriage law abiding. In the USA this is not the case and you can just marry in the temple if you are worthy etc. With respect to waiting a year after a civil marriage to be sealed in the temple concerns those couples who are not ready for marriage in the temple or new members that have not been in church for a year. They can be married civilally but are required to wait a year to be sealed and this is church policy world-wide. Hope this helps.

[dogzilla]

Just to clarify, because I read that sort of quickly... what you're saying is:

If two TBM, worthy, current-temple-recommend-issued people wanted a civil marriage in addition to the temple one, the church would be all for it and support that?

Ih that is true, why do not more people with mixed families (nonmo plus TBMs) do this?

Had I stayed in the church, I would have or else my nonmo mother would never have forgiven me. If something had gone horribly wrong and I got married, that is. :p

[peter_mary]

I think the rhetorical question that is being asked is this...

If the principles of the gospel are true yesterday, today and forever, unchanging and uncompromising, then how does it make sense that in ONE country you can have a civil marriage outside the temple, and then waltz right into the temple immediately thereafter and get sealed, while in another country you have to wait a year, regardless of whether or not their are "worthiness" issues? In theory, the same standard should be imposed. If you get married in Mexico or the UK or anywhere else where this is the case, you should have to wait a year to be sealed in the Temple. OR...if you live in the US and you want a civil ceremony first so your non-member friends and family, or your minor siblings, or your dad who smokes, can attend your marriage, then you should be able to waltz right into the temple immediately thereafter and get sealed.

The big question is, why should God really care what the laws of the land are? It seems, from a study of the Church, that God gets pushed around quite a bit by the bullies of this world. You'd think he'd be better than that... :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

[Born Free]

Australia is one country where the civil marriage is required, so I had one TBM sibling who was married civilly in Oz on the Saturday, and then Monday or Tuesday they were off to the temple in New Zealand to be married uncivilly :o

I recall my father making lots of noise about how impressed he was that they did not consumate their marriage until after their (uncivil) Temple Marriage.

The flip side of this magical thinking is I have a guy going through the separated mens program I run, who has a TBM recently separated Temple Married female friend. She is devastated that after doing "all the right things" including Temple Marriage, her marriage has gone pear shaped.

The sad part is that most these people will blame themselves for failing in some way, rather than work out that the Church is substantially at fault.

I feel for people who on top of the stresses of the loss of their relationship, also have their belief structure get very shakey. That is stress-central.

Daryl

[silverfox]

I think the rhetorical question that is being asked is this...

If the principles of the gospel are true yesterday, today and forever, unchanging and uncompromising, then how does it make sense that in ONE country you can have a civil marriage outside the temple, and then waltz right into the temple immediately thereafter and get sealed, while in another country you have to wait a year, regardless of whether or not their are "worthiness" issues? In theory, the same standard should be imposed. If you get married in Mexico or the UK or anywhere else where this is the case, you should have to wait a year to be sealed in the Temple. OR...if you live in the US and you want a civil ceremony first so your non-member friends and family, or your minor siblings, or your dad who smokes, can attend your marriage, then you should be able to waltz right into the temple immediately thereafter and get sealed.

The big question is, why should God really care what the laws of the land are? It seems, from a study of the Church, that God gets pushed around quite a bit by the bullies of this world. You'd think he'd be better than that... :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

As a Mo in MI couples had to travel to Washington DC to be married. So although leaders tried to encourage temple marriage, civil marriages were easily accepted. BUT couples still had to wait a year to go to the temple.

I remember our ward sending us all down there to do baptisms for the dead one summer. It was interesting.