As is widely known, the church requires members who were married civilly without being sealed in a temple at the same time* to wait one year from the date of the civil marriage before they can be sealed.
It’s not as widely known that there are a few exceptions to this, the most interesting (in my opinion) being that if one or both of the members had been a member of the church for less than a year at the time of the civil marriage, they’re eligible to be sealed as soon as both of them have been confirmed members for at least a year.
For example: If someone got baptized this past 1 January, and another this past 1 February, if they got married this coming 1 June, they wouldn’t have to wait until the following 1 June to be sealed, but rather only until the next 1 February. Also, as i read things, even if a lifelong member married the person baptized this past 1 February on 1 June, they’d only have to wait until the next 1 February for their sealing, not the following 1 June.
So if you’re going to require waiting periods to enter the temples, i like this policy for a number of reasons. (And, contrary to what one might expect from reading this blog, i actually do like finding church policies that i like.)
* For those countries that don’t recognize a temple sealing as a valid marriage, substitute “as close together as possible” for “at the same time”.
Faith Hill: Where Are You, Christmas?
11 years ago
2 comments:
I know someone (lifer) who married a convert. Convert joined two months before they were married (civilly). They were sealed 10 months later just after Convert was a member one year. That was a few years ago. A few people tried to convince them they were breaking rules, but they were not.
Of course, if their temple (and bishop, and stake president) actually had been allowing them to “break the rules” they wouldn’t have actually been breaking any rules, would they?
Post a Comment