.jpg)
Salt Lake City Temple
The LDS church teaches that a marriage can be "sealed" within LDS temples so that they last for time and eternity. Not only is this meant to unify a couple in the afterlife, but it's an essential step in gaining the greatest degree of glory.
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1–4).
Because only LDS members who hold a temple recommend are permitted to enter the temple, oftentimes family members or friends are excluding from the wedding. This can create resentment and disappointment.
There is nothing wrong with the LDS church declaring that certain ceremonies are sacred and unsuitable for anyone but worthy LDS members. This is their right and freedom.
The problem is that the wedding is not one of those religiously protected rites.
The "sealing" is the sacred ceremony that must take place in the temple. Weddings, in and of themselves, can be performed almost anywhere by almost anyone. In the eyes of the law, an LDS wedding is exactly the same as a Baptist, a Catholic, or an atheist wedding. It doesn't matter if the marriage is performed by a temple president or by Elvis at a drive-thru chapel in Vegas.
It's the sealing ceremony that is special and sacred to LDS members. This is what Mormons believe elevates their union to something above and beyond any mortal "til death do you part" wedding.
By rolling the wedding and sealing together into the same ceremony, the LDS church has essentially co-opted the civil marriage and turned it into part of their religious practice. It's doctrinally unnecessary and excludes non-Mormons and non-temple recommend holders from being a part of the wedding.
This practice may help explain why the LDS church is so heavily involved in the fight against gay marriage. For many Mormons, the difference between a civil marriage and a religious ceremony has become nonexistent.
Mormons may think that a marriage within the temple is more meaningful or more spiritual, but this is a personal decision. The church may also feel that a wedding within the temple is preferable, but it is not required. According to the doctrine, it's only the sealing that matters.
We know this the case because the LDS church performs proxy sealings for those who have died. Those existing marriages are sealed. Similarly, married couples who later convert to the church can be sealed in the temple.
But even more so, the church does not insist on weddings within the temple in other countries.
In some countries, the law requires that a wedding be performed by a public official and/or in a public setting. In these areas, the couple can be wed with all of their friends and family present, and then at the earliest opportunity go to an LDS temple to be sealed.
This is not permitted in the United States. In the U.S., the law permits a wedding to be performed within the temple, and so church policy virtually forces American LDS members to do it there. They do this by making members who get married outside the temple wait a full year before they can be sealed.
No particular reason is given for this waiting period, but many believe it's meant for repentance. Many assume that if a couple is married outside of the temple, it's because they were unworthy to do it in the temple. The sense is that if you have the ability to get married in the temple, but choose not to, it must be because you've done something wrong.
But this is not necessarily the case. It's standard policy that all couples have to wait, regardless of their personal situation. So, considering the importance of being sealed, most LDS couples choose to get married and sealed in the temple, even if it means that non-member family must wait outside, excluded.
Church policies do allow for a simple ring ceremony that can take place after the wedding. This is meant to be an event that friends and family can attend. For some, this token ceremony couldn't possibly be enough. They've been prevented from being part of the actual wedding, and a ring ceremony is a sorry substitute.
Few people would object to waiting outside during a religious sealing ceremony, if this is what the couple wishes. The frustration and hurt comes from the fact that the church has taken the civil wedding ceremony and is forcing it to take place within temple walls.
Some comments found online:
I recall many happy moments back then, and I don't think there is a Dad anywhere who was more proud of his son than I was on his wedding day. But I will also never forget the feeling of devastating loneliness as I drove through the residential areas surrounding the Timpanogas LDS temple, knowing that my son was getting married without me nearby to support him.
It still breaks my heart that my mom had to sit outside the temple when we got married, along with Mark's little sister and three of my best girlfriends.
ALL of my daughter's family will be sitting outside. She will be in there alone. Her father, mother, and twin brother will not be there. Her favorite cousins (more like brothers and sister) will not be there. The only one in my family who will be worthy is my sister--who I no longer speak to--and my daughter said she won't be invited. I know it will be difficult--but I won't be alone--she will. THAT is what I wish she would see.
The temple was full of people who hardly knew my granddaughter, but her parents (who supported her, paid for the wedding etc. )her twin sister, brother, grandparents, friends set outside. The ring ceremony was really an insult added to injury.
When I tell people about standing outside in the Atlanta rain while my daughter got married, they just stare like they're waiting for the punchline of the joke.
Prior to our daughter’s conversion and temple marriage you would never have heard a negative comment about Mormons or the Mormon Church in our home. All that changed the day we were told to take our breaking hearts and wait outside while the daughter we love and cherish was married to her wonderful husband.
Twenty years of parenting was dismissed as irrelevant by the church that claims to support families. The damage done to church’s image extends to the opinions of our family and friends. Because of our experience, none of them will ever let a Mormon missionary into their home. They want nothing to do with a church that takes a family event that should only be about love, unity, and joy but instead interjects judgment, division, and pain.
There is a tendency for some Mormons to shift the blame onto those who can't enter the temple. "If you wanted to attend the wedding, then you should have gotten your temple recommend. Or converted. (?)" This kind of sentiment is a sign that some Mormons feel they now own the wedding, and if anyone else wants a part of it, they have to play by Mormon rules.
This is true of LDS religious ceremonies, like the sealing.
This is not true of civil contracts, like a marriage.
Obviously, if a couple wants to perform the wedding inside the temple, they should have that option.
But there's no reason that the church couldn't change its policy, do away with the mandatory one-year waiting period, and do what is already being done in other countries:
Allow a couple the option to get married and enjoy the wedding with their friends and family. Then afterwards, get sealed in the temple for "time and all eternity" according to their religious beliefs.
Edit:
I initially withheld my "sources" out of respect for LDS policy and copyright, but because it seems that many readers suspect my facts, I'll go ahead and be more specific. The 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions gives instructions for bishops and stake presidents on how to handle various matters. It's available online if you wish to search for it. I won't link to it, again, out of respect for LDS policies.
Page 81 says that "Church leaders encourage members to qualify for temple marriage and to be married in a temple. Where temple marriage is not possible because of personal circumstances or legal requirements, leaders may perform civil marriages."
It is assumed that barring some problem, LDS members should be married in the temple. What if they choose not to?
Page 84 answers:
"A husband and wife who were married outside a temple may be sealed after one full year from the date of the civil marriage. However, this one-year waiting period does not apply to worthy couples in the following cases:
1. The temple in which the couple will be sealed is in a country that requires a civil marriage and does not recognize a marriage in the temple.
2. The couple live in a country where there is not a temple and the laws of the country do not recognize a marriage performed outside the country.
3. An unchaperoned couples travel to a temple will require one or more overnight stops because of distance.
4. A couple could not be married in a temple because one or both had not been a member of the Church for one year at the time of their civil marriage. They may receive their endowments and be sealed any time after both have been members for at least one year."
So, a worthy LDS couple who have been members their entire lives and have access to a temple must be married there, or be forced to wait one year to be sealed. No reason is given in the handbook for why they should wait.
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read more of Jonathan's articles about science and religion
Comments
The first thing I did after I left the church was call my sister and apologize that I had been so insufferable and arrogant by choosing to marry the first time in a place that promotes conformity over conscience, loyalty over love, and orthodoxy over authenticity. It was and is a source of great shame for me that I defiled the sacred nature of family ties for the sake of loyalty oaths inside a gaudy white parlor while dressed in modified Masonic garb. As I prepare to marry again I am so happy that those who are truly worthy - my friends and my family who have conscience enough not to conform to the dictates of a fatally flawed institution - will be front and center at my wedding.
You point fault in the wrong place. It's our country's civil marriage laws that declare the sealing ceremony is also civil marriage. In many other countries around the globe, it is required that a civil marriage be performed separate from the sealing ceremony and that it be done by a government certified representative. I have been to many LDS weddings that included a separate wedding or ring ceremony, including exchanging vows, so family and friends who can't or won't attend the temple can still be included. Whether or not this additional ceremony happens is up to the bride and groom.
Or, the couple could do the non-mormon friendly ceremony afterwards. Bitter much? Everything you write reeks of bitter resentment. Let's get this straight: Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions were created much much later for tax benefits.
For devout LDS, keeping the focus on the temple and the covenants made therein is the central crowning and most sacred event of their marriage. No relationship should seek to detract from that sacred committment between the couple and God, performed in the temple. I don't expect you to understand this, but that is why God is called "God," because He comes first, before anyone else. If family members are offended, they should consider that it is the decision of the couple who feel that that very special day should not be diluted with lesser ceremonies which would attempt to compete with the attention that the Temple Sealing Ceremony deserves.
Seems Michael has some issues with the Church that are much bigger than whether or not he and his family can go inside a mormon temple. It's not like anyone is forced to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. And conformity goes both ways. Instead of conforming with the LDS Church way of life, you conformed with another way of life. I don't agree one bit that the LDS Church teaches conformity over conscience or loyalty over love, etc. I have found quite the opposite. The LDS Church has taught me not to conform to prevailing ways of life and instead follow my conscience. It has taught me that loyalty to God and family teaches me to show greater love for both, in effect losing my life in the service of others. It has been the most authentic exercise in self-honesty and improvement I've ever experienced. I'm a much better person and have the best relationships I've ever had with loved ones because of what I have learned in the LDS Church.
Jonathan, why don't you go to the source and ask the church why they have a one year waiting period before getting married in the temple, instead of writing an article with your gun half-cocked?
Jon, members can choose to have a civil wedding with all their non-Mormon and non-Temple Recommend having friends in attendance and then get sealed later. But if they choose instead to combine the two ceremonies it's their choice. Not the Church's.
I was married in an LDS temple and some of my family members couldn't come. Because it was a sealing ceremony it needed to take place somewhere as distant from the world as possible. And because of its sacred nature, not everyone should be allowed to witness it. Some of my family wouldn't understand anyway and would not cherish the experience the way I did. No one felt sad or upset with me because I chose to have an LDS sealing ceremony. Why? Because they love me regardless of my religious differences. And they took part in my reception (not in an LDS chapel btw). My LDS wedding was beautiful because it emphasized LOVE AND loyalty as going hand in hand. In no way did I feel like I conformed to anything. It was truly MY wedding. I don't understand the need to mock others for choosing to have a wedding in the place of their religious choice. I don't mock my friends for getting married in a courthouse or in a Lutheran chapel. Weddings are not about whose religion is the silliest.
My parents had both a civil wedding ceremony AND a temple ceremony. It made EVERYONE happy! The church doesn't force anyone to do anything. I think you need to think a bit more freely, Mr. Freethinker. Or be honest with your readers and change your title to Salt Lake City Anti-Mormon Examiner.
It's just sad that a lot people think that the LDS Sealing takes away the good from a marriage ceremony. Your statement saying you have to wait a year is very wrong, I been married in the temple and I can tell you first hand, you only have to wait a year if you are a convert that has recently been baptized, other than any worthy member who has a temple recommend, or is temple worthy and working towards getting his or her recommend is not told they have to wait a year. Please get your facts straight before you start making accusations about stuff you don't know what your talking about. If you are an ex member of the church who has hate towards how things are done, you should be dammed for the things you think, cause your making it sound like it's all such a bad thing, so what I am going to tell you is this. Plain and simple you need to face facts and grow up, stop being someone who makes the church out to be a bad place, when in reality, you just feel disgusted by all this crap.
The biggest fault in your argument is that you assume that marriage is a civil ceremony versus a religious ceremony. Do some research. It was a religious ceremony long before it became (out of convenience) a civil ceremony.
First off there are a few grammatical errors. Second I agree with paul and jon. It has always been a religious ceremony from the beginning of the time it was instituted. Lots of mormons have wedding ceremonies after the temple marriage. It's not saying we don't know the difference, but more often than not two mormons getting married involved a family that is active and temple worthy too.
Hope I wish I could apologize to my parents for leaving them at he kitchen table the morning I married in the temple. They had to tell their relatives, friends, neighbors, they weren't welcome at their oldest son's wedding.
If I only knew then, what I know now. Of course, I just stood outside the temple while my oldest grandson got married, I guess it's payback time.
Jonathan you have an interesting take to say the least.
For the time being I'll leave aside your attempt to dictate what is and isn't doctrinal following your understanding. That alone could open a whole new can that I could go on about.
I think more substantially incongruous is your position that there's a significant problem with one part of the formalization of a civil marriage being done in privacy and restriction. I mean if you take your logic to it's demanded conclusion it leaves you in quite the interesting condundrum. If the fact that something has a civil component means that it can't or shouldn't have parts of it performed in conditions and circumstances of restricted access just really throws quite the wrench into it. Aside from the fact that it would bring into question the invitation practices for weddings, and a person's right to choose who they will or will not have attend their wedding one has to then also wonder where exactly does the civil component hold sway?##
## now if you say the civil component is what exempts it from privacy conditions as present in temple weddings then any other part of the ceremony/civil action that has civil bearings would be within the realm of also demanding like exemptions from privatizing attempts. Let's take, for example, the action seen as a legal threshold in the action of civil marriage--consumation. Since until that act is performed the finality of the marriage act is in question then that act, following your odd reasoning of what can or can't be considered a public or private affair, falls under the confines of the civil action, of civil marriage
Do you really want to do that?
Is that really the measuring stick for what components in a civiliy binding marriage are or are not acceptable?
Aside from being present at my own I have no desire to be present at the consumation of anyone else's marriage. But your stance, in principle, is independent of that. If it's civil, in your view, it's game.
When my wife and I were married, not one member of either family was there. It was as if we had eloped. What should have been a bringing together of two families, along with all our friends, was instead an exclusion forced upon us by a policy intended to increase the number of temple weddings. At the time, we were willing to make the sacrifice for our faith, but as I look back on it, I wonder what might have been and I feel sad for those who are forced to choose between faith and family - for a stupid policy.
You're really going to go on about grammatical errors, Alex. I think there are bigger issues.
As someone who is not LDS who couldn't attend a family members wedding because I'm not "worthy" it's a shame the church, which is supposed to be about family, wouldn't follow that approach and push to have families involved in the wedding itself.
Nice article...all grammar aside.
The Church allows you to do a "ring exchange ceremony" which is NOT a legal marriage.
The Church DOES make you wait ONE YEAR if the wedding is done separate in the US. In other countries, it is a different matter I believe. The Church in the US chose to combine the ceremonies, but didn't or cannot in other countries.
You make a pretty good point about marriage and sealing being melded into one thing--- it can serve to alienate people.
However, Mormons' view of the gay marriage debate is very separate from this issue. Traditional marriage was instituted by God for very good reasons. There shouldn't be a legitimate way to force a homosexual marriage on children who didn't choose it---through adoption etc..
oh snap... looks like everyone that said Jon wasn't prepared should apologize...
It has been about 35 years sense my husband & myself were married in the temple... and to this day we are still ashamed of hurting both our families so intensely. After 25 years of dedicated, we began to thouroghly study the church using LDS historical material available at BYU and other LDS libraries. All though we are still members, we have stopped paying tithing to the church... we pay a full tithe but to charities that we know 'where and how' the money is being spent and used. Of coarse we were not permitted to see our son married in the temple this past year. We paid for most of the wedding and supported his day. We know of many friends who have come to feel as we do, but they still pay their tithes to the church because they "want to be able to see their children married". Thus it is not the charitable heart that matters, but the money paid to the very rich Mormon Church.
Realize too that we had attended and worked in LDS temples for approx 30 years prior to our deep study.
What difference does it really make for people whether they do or don't witness an actual component of a marriage? Are they really just there for the people to see a single moment? And why is that moment so critical to see? Why isn't the procuring of the marriage license without family or consumating the marriage without the family acts that people must see? I don't get it. If you don't believe that the ceremony performed is effectatious. If you think the civili is all that matters then why do you have to be present when the couple is formally pronounced 'man and wife'? Do you get something more magical out of those two words than you'd get out of seeing the certificate or of seeing the couple happy to be knowing that they are going to their honeymoon? I mean what is it that's so all important about this particular moment to the family? Some of my siblings will not be there when I get married and they not only pay their tithing but believe in the effecaciousness of the ceremony. Yet^^
^^ people who don't believe in the ceremony get all in a hissy when they can't see something that lasts maybe 10-15 minutes. I could see the outrage if you couldn't be with them for the reception, or the whole day. But if you're okay with not watching the consumation of the marriage then what is the big deal with seeing some words spoken and watching them kiss? I mean honestly folks! They can kiss and exchange rings several times for all to see, it doesn't change the reality of what does or doesn't happen. The marriage, civiliy, is effected by three events, the license, the ceremony and the consumation, why do you have to be present for the very moment of any one of those? WHY? Will you not believe it if you don't see it? Are you less happy for the couple if you can't see it? Is it less real if you can't see it? For people that claim to be so rationally minded and above myth y'all place a lot of value in something that intrinsically need not have any value in you personally witnessing
And if you don't trust your child or your friend or your family member that they were in fact married then there are other issues for which they should likely be excluding you from their more personally special moments as a couple.
Another typical anti-mormon story with no purpose but to sling more mud at the church, filled with the typical quote mining and distortion and telling LDS members what they believe as appose to what they actually believe. Can't we get some real new instead of someone complaining about how he hates mormans.
Been reading comments, just a note to HiveRadical ... Your comments are embarasing to those of us who are advid LDS. You seem to have some emotional problems that are not representative to most of us Mormons who are also Christians.
"4. A couple could not be married in a temple because one or both had not been a member of the Church for one year at the time of their civil marriage. They may receive their endowments and be sealed any time after both have been members for at least one year."
Sounds more like you have to have been a member for more then a year before being married, thus the claim that all members must wait a years is a lie, only those who have only just joined. Also, the only part of the 'wedding' that occurs in the temple is the sealing and most have the rest of the festivities/ring ceremonies/wedding receptions, outside the temple or elsewhere. Only a truely petty and selfish person would insist that two people doing THEIR marrage the way THEY want is wrong.
As a wife of a Bishop, I can tell you that the facts in this article are correct. there were no lies or distortions of truth by the author. I do not hold to the sentiments expressed for I believe in temple marriage and believe the issue is a matter of faith. to the author, please except my apology for any members who seem to be ignorant on official church policy. Not all Bishops adhere to those policies which at times leads to confusion by some members as to where the church officially stands.
You seem to think that marriage is a civil ceremony that has been appropriated by religions.
The truth is the opposite. Marriage is a religious sacrament. It always has been. (Catholics even list it as one of the seven sacraments). It is civil society that decided to first recognize religious marriages- and then later added an option for marrying outside of religion.
So your pretense of being offended is not based on facts, but rather on your misunderstanding of what marriage is. Marriage was instituted by God to serve His purposes. To a Mormon a sealing and a wedding are the same thing. It is the creation of a contract between a man, a woman, and God. Marriage is not an excuse for family to gather together and celebrate. The insistence that the wedding take place in the temple as a sealing, ensures that the wedding is focused on the true purpose of marriage, rather then the social baggage that you believe to be so valuable.
Jonathan;
You forgot to look at all the good that comes from a marraige within in the walls of the Temple.
but then again, after following your writtings I find this to be your norm.
I know of folks who decided it was more important to have some family member at the wedding and they chose to wait a year for thier Sealing.
I also know lots of folks who understand the importance to the couple going to the Temple to start thier life togeather and even though they could not partake of the Temple blessings themselves, they were happy for and supported the couple in their decission.
The Sealing is the Wedding,
When you try to seperate the Sealing from the Wedding, you speak of the requirements of the law as if the words spoken over the couple was part of what the law requires. To stasifie the law, the "civil contract" as you call it, all you have to do is sigh the paper in front of someone the state reconnises as an athority to act for the state.
No words are nessary. My Grandfather was the mayer of a small town and there were folks who just wanted the paperwork signed so they could be on there way.
No words, no fuss.
yet it looks like you want us to think differently, it looks like you want us to think that the words used in the Sealing are not the words of the wedding.
Would signing the papers outside the Temple make you happy?
To hiveradical: As a convert to the LDS faith let me offer you a little more perspective than you seem to have on this issue. A major focus of LDS doctrine and teaching is (rightly so) on the Temple sealing ceremony. We speak about it at great length. We often begin discussion with those not of our faith by extolling the virtues of such sealings (families together forever). So to then expect that missing out on this ceremony be regarded as "no bid deal" is very disingenuous.
Temple sealings are a big deal. That's the whole point. That the ceremony is simple or brief doesn't diminish from it's import.
I understand your point hiveradical. And it is one I tried to stress with my family; that what they were misssing wasn't long and wasn't what they would recognize as a traditional wedding (no waltzing down the isle, etc.). But while true, this kind of thinking misses the point entirely.
I don't exactly agree with the author but don't diminish the issue; Temples are a big deal.
Many of you miss the point...a parent has given much of their life to raising their son and daughter. The pinnacle of the rearing experience is to be with that son or daughter as they enter into marriage moving from one family to another. To take away that opportunity takes away from the parent(s) the last and final rite of passage they have in wishing the best for their child entering into a new life. It goes way beyond this...my brother married a woman whose parents were catholic. Her parents planned a grand re-wedding in a catholic cathedral following the Temple wedding. Our stake president threatened to excommunicate them both if they went through with a second wedding. How hateful, small minded, bitter, to not allow parents to see their own become adults on their most joyfull day. I personally believe the Proclamation of the Family should be renamed the Proclamation of the Mormon Family...there is no support or acceptance in the fullest sense of families outside the church.
" For many Mormons, the difference between a civil marriage and a religious ceremony has become nonexistent."
HERE IS A QUESTION FOR MEMBERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS
Do you folks also believe that God ordained marriage for the good of mankind, or do you follow what this person wants to put across when he implies that God does not care if you are married or not?
Is marriage important to God?
thaimassage says:
"Our stake president threatened to excommunicate them both if they went through with a second wedding. How hateful, small minded, bitter, to not allow parents to see their own become adults on their most joyfull day"
My sister was married in a Cathiloc wedding and as I remember, as part of the service she and her husband made promisses as to how they would follow the teachings of the Calithic Church.
I can see how this would be a conflict to someone,s promices to follow Heavenly Father through His teachings in the LDS Church.
Did your brother try to have a service where they did not have to promice to be Catholics as part of the marriage service?
Since Jonathan is a "freethinker" he just doesn't get it. Entering the temple requires meeting a standard. Those who don't achieve that standard don't get to enter, for any reason. So my Dad didn't get to see my wedding/sealing twenty years ago--it was his decision not to meet the standard. Yes he resents it, but precisely because he doesn't get it. After all, I can't get a driver's license if I don't meet the qualifications...so if I were blind would I moan and complain if the BMV didn't issue a license to me? Sheesh, instead of a rant like Mr. Montgomery and many others have expressed, why not try to understand?
What many do not understand is that in the mormon church there is no wedding as the world sees one. There are no vows to each other to love, cherish etc. They are covenanting to keep the promises they have already promised to keep when they previously went to the temple that is essentially, help the mormon church in all ways they can. The only promise made to each other is to have sexual relations with just who they are married to. The surprising part is that most Mormons do not even realize this. You can read the ceremony on line and having been a part of hundreds of temple marriages; have had temple work done for hundreds of my ancestors. For those who believe in and are faithful, the ordinance is very sacred. to the unbeliever it would seem strange and probably would become an instrument of ridicule to the two being married. Religious beliefs should be held with respect for the believer;rely on faith and love to heal emotional wounds that can develop in families in oh so many ways.
Dee you are right on. My wife and I were having some marriage difficulties so we took a non denominational marriage class for we could not afford counseling. One of the lessons was on how well we did in keeping the promises we made to each other in our marriage vows. When we went home to do our homework we just looked at each other, sure we had made some, but could not recall what they were. We felt very amiss. We looked up the ceremony in the D&C and talked with our Bishop. Because the officiator in the temple will often give advise on loving each other in marriage and what other advise he wants to give, and the way the ordinance is worded, you do not really realize that the covenants you made were all to the church except to pertaining to sex. Those covenants were done at a different time so you do not fully understand that till later. In our case 13 years later. We felt the need to make some promises to each other to strengthen our marriage. We did privately way and it helped us.
I agree with the comment that the one year period should be waived in the US as it is in other countires. Marriage is faced with enough callenges without having to start out with the potential of offending an inlaw.
Peace,
Former Bish. Batman
I agree! Creating families should be a family affair. Even staunch, full tithe paying saints will be told by the church leadership to go to their non worthy relatives for help if the need ever arose. Funny how the importance of family shifts depending upon $$$. By the way, in the LDS temples women do make another promise to their husbands... to obey their counsel... to be obedient. Just F.Y.I.
Really, the only person I cared was at my wedding was my wife; and my brothers and sisters where happy they had an excuse not to come.
To Taylor
What a very sad statement.
Marc, They are told to be obedient to their husbands ONLY when his counsel is the same as God's. So really that means that women need to be obedient to God. It's very old phrasing that can be misinterpreted. I would know, I was upset by that line at first (I'm a woman) until I paid attention to the rest of the sentence.
My point was that the only vows to each other in a lds temple ceremony is 1. sex with one husband for the women... sex with only WIVES for the men. 2. wife to obey husband. True husbands are to obey God as he feels inspired in his daily life. If the wife feels inspiration differently, she is to yield to her husband. There are no vows to Love, honor, cherish as previously pointed out by a comment.
As an older gentleman, The covenants I took may not be the same as yours. I took mine out in 1976. to use the Law of Chastity for example, there were versions during the 1800's but the 1900's versions are.
1931 version LAW OF CHASTITY FOR MEN
You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood. All bow your heads and say yes.
_
1984 version Law of Chastity
To the sisters it is, that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
_____________
1990 version Law of Chastity
We are instructed to give unto you the law of Chastity; which is, that each of you shall have no sexual relations
to contomue
________________________________________________________________________
1990 version Law of Chastity
We are instructed to give unto you the law of Chastity; which is, that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
As an example, here is how the Law of Obedience was presented to me in 1976:
ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of Obedience to their husbands. Sisters, arise.
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands, and abide by his counsel in righteousness. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."
WOMEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
ELOHIM: Brethren, Arise.
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say "yes". MEN: Yes.
In the 1990 revisions,this Law was changed so that the woman is not required to "obey" the husband, but to "obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken unto the counsel o
In the 1990 revisions this Law was changed so that the woman is not required to "obey" the husband, but to "obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken unto the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father."
So FYI, so you can see the current wording is not very old nor is there any such wording as "only if". Sisters in the church are instructed by Church prophets to obey their husbands counsel and if he is wrong, then he will answer to the Father.
If you understood as much as you oviously think you do about the LDS church, you would know that your opinon on what is imortaint about "weddings"; is not importaint to members getting married it the temple.
Jonathan
Thank you for your insightful article. I am a member and I agree with you and so do many Latter-Day Saint young adults. I find that several members all over the US just have another ceremony privately. I know of at least 2 Bishops who supported them quietly and family relations were not only saved but love and appreciation was very much honored. I DO NOT believe God was offended. True, few the number I have attended, but of those the Spirit was very strong.
To this group of members your opinion does matter. Than You.
Jonathan:
While the title of your article is absurd, I can empathize with the spirit of the article.
I have lived outside the U.S. and understand Church policy in view of the laws of other nations.
There is a very strong chance that LDS Church policy could change in the U.S.. to accommodate couples where one part of the family is not LDS.
However, how far will this go? It seems you have shifted the rights of the couple to marry where they choose, to the rights of the audience who will witness it?
Can you see how absurd that position is?
Also, it would be nice for you to admit that your argument rests on an appeal to emotion rather to any other material standard.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!