A parent waiting outside their child's wedding

Admitted

Their own church publications admit these facts. You can make this point from LDS sources alone.

What the rule is

Only members with a current temple recommend may attend a sealing. So a parent who is not a member, or has resigned, or does not hold a recommend, waits outside while their child is married.

What made it worse before 2019

In the United States, a couple could hold a civil ceremony first, so that the excluded family could be there. If they did, they then had to wait a year to be sealed.

That pushed couples to choose the temple over the people who could not come in.

What changed

The First Presidency removed the one-year wait in May 2019. Their letter gave the reason plainly: families were feeling excluded.

The recommend rule for attending a sealing is unchanged.

Their answer, at full strength

That the temple is a sacred place, and its ordinances ask for covenant worthiness. The same bar applies to everyone, for every temple rite.

It is not aimed at wedding guests. And the 2019 letter says its own reason: "when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil marriage followed by a temple sealing is authorized." So a couple may now hold a wedding that no one is shut out of, and be sealed right after.

How strong is this argument?

They admit this themselves. The rule and the old one-year penalty are documented church policy.

The 2019 letter names the harm it was fixing. That change is a real improvement, and you should say so.

It also confirms the underlying facts rather than answering them.

What to say

"Would your parents be able to come in?"

A Salt Lake Temple sealing room for the living, published by the church in 1912

The Salt Lake Temple; only current recommend-holders may pass its doors for a sealing

How they answer this — at its strongest

The temple asks the same of everyone, and the one-year wait went in 2019.

The church holds that the temple is a sacred space, and that its ordinances ask for covenant worthiness. That is the same standard applied to everyone for any temple ordinance. It is not aimed at wedding guests.

The 2019 First Presidency change was made expressly so that 'when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil marriage followed by a temple sealing is authorized'.

So couples may now hold a fully inclusive civil wedding first and be sealed straight after. The church presents that as solving the family problem while keeping the temple holy.

The verdict

They admit this: the 2019 letter names the very harm it was fixing.

The rule and the old one-year wait are church policy, set down in writing.

The church's own 2019 letter names the harm it was easing. That change is a real improvement, and you should say so.

It also confirms the underlying claim rather than answering it. The recommend rule for a sealing has not changed. A parent without one still waits outside.

Open this case in the full study tool →