Follow Britain's example

Mr. Smurthwaite's comment (Readers' Forum, June 23) comparing marriage to an operating procedure seems to misunderstand the import of life-celebration events.

In Britain, it is legally required that marriages be public to allow for community participation and for the queen to give oversight. Mormons marry there, then have their marriage sealed in the temple. Why do Mormons in Utah exclude their family from their most important life event? Why isn't the wedding, not just the reception, held publicly for their members of other faith family and friends, then the sealing ceremony after?

26 June 2005 Reader's Forum of the Deseret News

[Note:] On 6 May 2019, the First Presidency removed the rule that required members wanting to be sealed in a temple to wait a year before being sealed if they had a traditional wedding first. Specifically, …when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil marriage followed by a temple sealing is authorized, though this appears to leave the decision to the local ward bishop and the individuals getting married.

©2005 David Egan Evans.