There is an old tradition that if the groom sees the bride before the wedding, it is bad luck. According to BridalGuide
During the time when arranged marriages were custom, the betrothed couple wasn’t allowed to see each other before the wedding at all. The wedding symbolized a business deal between two families (romantic, huh?), and a father would have been pleased for his daughter to marry a man from a rich, land-owning family. But he also feared that if the groom met the bride before the wedding and thought she wasn’t attractive, he’d call off the wedding, casting shame onto the bride and her family. Therefore, it became tradition that the bride and groom were only allowed to meet at the wedding ceremony so that the groom did not have the opportunity to change his mind. And that veil the bride wears? Its original purpose was also to keep the groom from finding out what the bride looked like until the last possible minute, when it was too late to back out of the transaction.
Mormons married in the temple pay no heed to this superstition, because the bride and groom arrive at the temple together, meet with temple staff to fill out paperwork, and then walk into the sealing room together. The father does not give away the bride as in traditional protestant or catholic weddings.
What do you think of Mormons break with tradition when it comes to weddings? Is it time for protestants to get rid of the father “giving away” the bride? Is this a sign that the bride is property of men? Are Mormon ways more egalitarian?
Wheat & Tares 
I attended a Roman Catholic wedding where the bride and groom walked down the aisle together. I don’t know how common that is, but I liked it so much I did the same for my own wedding, and no veil, thank you very much! I could do that of course, because here in Britain, we have the wedding first in church, and then attend the temple for sealing afterwards.
Have to say most of the LDS weddings I’ve attended here follow the traditional protestant veiled bride attended down the aisle by her father though. Given the whole temple script, I don’t think Mormon ways are more egalitarian!
I would prefer for the church to allow U.S. church members to be able to do what members in other countries do because couples must be married by the state in other countries. A civil ceremony so everyone can attend then straight to the Temple and those that can’t enter the Temple are not left out.
It is ridiculous that U.S. church members have to wait one year for a Temple sealing after a civil ceremony. Needs to be changed.
Tradition is comfortable and provides continuity, bridges different generations And no, women are not the property of men.
EG-
YES!!!!
I’m with Hedgehog. These are more egalitarian practices, but they are belied by the ceremony script which is actually far less egalitarian.
LDS wedding practices evolved from sealing ceremonies for married couples. The happy fact that sexist Western wedding traditions were left behind was probably just a matter of practicality, but I hope that our noblest ideals influenced our egalitarian ways!
Agreed, there is very much a patriarchal strain in our sealing ceremonies, so egalitarian is not really the right word. Tradition is a better reason. My brother walked my sister down the aisle at her wedding, a few days after my dad’s funeral. It was not seen as sexist in any way. Tradition is still strong here for women to change their birth surname to their husband’s surname, so I see it more as a transition from her birth family to the new family she’s creating with her husband.
No. No. No. No.
The sealing script is so far from egalitarian it cancels out any gain from breaking tradition.
No.
I don’t see much difference between the bride’s parents walking down the aisle with the daughter and the groom’s parents walking down the aisle with the groom. Although the tradition may have begun with the dad giving the bride (as a type of property) to the groom, the flexibility now to select your own processional puts the perceived sexism in the hands of the bride and groom. If they have a problem with it, they’ll change it. If they don’t see it as sexist, they’ll go with the more traditional route.
In LDS sealing ceremonies, the sealer and both witness are required to be temple-worthy male members (or male temple workers can sit in). The moms of the brides effectively become bystanders. There is much less flexibility allowed to the bride and groom if they are sensitive to the overly patriarchal feel. I’ve often heard the sealing ceremony itself as the entrance to the Patriarchal Order of marriage. So no, egalitarian is not an appropriate description of the rules and wording of the ceremony.
The words that the sealer speaks prior to the ceremony and the tone of the relationship of the couple itself can support or diminish an egalitarian *feel* to the event. So there is that.
Hedgehog’s response made me cry a little and wish I lived in the UK when I was married. What a lovely thought to have a church wedding and a sealing. Would have eliminated so many of my regrets.