Would This Marriage Be Valid?

[Crywithasmile87]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

Thanks for the input!

Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

[john doe]

I think that's a question for the bishop involved to be asked. Situations may be different for each person. I would guess that the marriage would not be invalidated, but there would probably be a repentance process to go through as the bishop is led by the spirit.

[Gwen]

i don't think anything would be revoked. depending on how long it's been there may be something the bishop would ask of you. if it's bothering you talk to the bishop.

i am reminded of a story i read in the ensign yrs ago (which i can't seem to find) about an older couple that had always been faithful in church but would refuse any calling extended to them. after yrs the bishop finally sat them down to ask why. they had committed sins before marriage that they had never confessed to the bishop many years earlier and they felt unworthy to hold a calling. he said that sometimes time does heal wounds, that they were worthy of holding a calling and that they had repented of their sins. as i remember it did recommend talking to your bishop if in doubt, it would have been better for this couple than to have spent so many years filled with guilt.

granted that's my recall of it after several years... so..... lol

[Palerider]

Why try to see if you can get one over on somebody...step up and confess what you did.....better to have a clear conscience as opposed to beating yourself up wondering if you can sneak something by someone.

[Robert_Mason]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

Thanks for the input!

Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

I would personally feel that you should tell the Bishop and that your temple marriage should not be revoked. If it is, however, I'd think that (1) this shouldn't mean that you're not married at all (so you're not suddenly at risk of living in sin) and that (2) you should be able to return to the temple within a short period of time to do it over again.

[Corey]

This is exactly why you have a bishop. When both of you confess together with sincere repentence, your bishop will be inspired to do the Lord's will.

It could only damage the two of you to not confess.

[mikbone]

Great question.

The ordinance is valid. But it may not have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

D&C 132:6-7

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

You could comprare it to a sealing that has been perfromed for the Dead. The ordiance has been done but we have no idea if the people on the other side of the veil have accepted the work, or if the Lord will accept their sealing.

Even if their marriage was not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, it still can be in the future. They do not have to be re-sealed.

Do the right thing.

Edited May 31, 2009 by mikbone

[foreverafter]

Though you will be required to fully confess & repent & there may be some discipline involved, I believe that the only time that the marriage would not be valid is if it was a remarriage & one of the spouses was in reality the cause of the divorce to their former spouse. Thus, the remarriage would then most likely be adultery & not valid & the errant spouse would have to repent & return to their former spouse (who they are really still married to anyways in God's eyes) if that spouse wanted them back. But if the 1st spouse didn't want them back or believe they really changed or that their repentance was real, they would probably spend years trying to convince the former spouse of their true remorse & to take them back.

Edited June 1, 2009 by foreverafter

[Vort]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.)

No pun intended...

has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession

This is kind of like saying "Has followed all the steps for making cookies except getting the ingredients out."

goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste

"Months and months" does not really qualify as a "long period of staying chaste."

would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit

You would have to ask the Lord to know this. In my opinion, no, a marriage based on lies and false pretenses cannot possibly be "eternal". As far as "legit", yes, the couple is legally married in the eyes of the law and of the Church. That fact does not change just because they may have been unrepentant fornicators.

or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

No couple is sealed for all eternity merely on the basis of an ordinance. The sealing is affirmed and made efficacious by the holy spirit of promise, which surely cannot be present among those who have not repented of their sins.

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case)

"Just in case"...what? Just in case they actually wanted their marriage to be eternal?

would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?"

No.

Can the church do that?

No.

Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance?

Possibly. Or possibly they would be excommunicated for making a mockery of sacred covenants. Or possibly something else would happen.

Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

I guarantee, it matters. Whether they receive some particular form of Church discipline or not is irrelevant to whether "it matters".

Thanks for the input!

Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

Once upon a time, there was a couple who called God their "heavenly Father", but they didn't really believe he was a Father. They thought he was a heavenly Auditor or heavenly Scorekeeper, keeping tabs on technicalities and marking down good and bad acts as if he were Santa Claus going over his naughty/nice list.

Not understanding the nature of God and their relationship to him, they fornicated before marriage. Since they were children of God who had been raised in the gospel, they understood they had done something bad and felt guilt for their sin. But they decided they could probably cover up their sin and no one would notice, and they'd be okay.

They went to their bishop and lied to his face, telling him that they were completely worthy to enter their heavenly Father's holy temple and make eternal covenants with him. They repeated these lies to their stake president, who smiled at them, prayed with them, and wished them all the best on their marital journey. Then, still filthy with their fornications, they entered the Holy Temple, knelt in that filthy state at God's altar, and made eternal covenants they were not worthy to pronounce.

They never told anyone about their fornication, and because she didn't get pregnant from the act (or maybe she did and they decided to abort the baby, neglecting to tell the bishop about that part, too), no one was the wiser. But a funny thing happened to this couple, only it wasn't very funny: They largely stopped progressing. Thirty years later, they still thought of their heavenly Father as an automated record keeper. They didn't bother to try to live commandments with exactness. At first, this was because they felt guilty about their premarital fornication; later, they began to justify themselves by looking down on their fellow Saints as simple (when they felt charitable) or hypocritical (the rest of the time) for worrying about things like shopping on Sundays when there were people in the world who were really hurting!!! (Besides, all the best sales were on Sundays, and they were no fools.)

When their oldest started sleeping with his girlfriend and partying around, they told him he shouldn't do that, but they lacked the spiritual maturity to give him any sort of insight into why he shouldn't or how he was damaging himself. How could they tell him? They never learned it themselves. And later, when their son decided he wanted to serve a mission, they encouraged him (maybe not overtly, but subtly) to hide his transgressions from the bishop. After all, they reasoned, those sins were no longer a part of him. Right? The fact he wanted to serve a mission was proof of that!

They were greatly offended when the stake president, who had discovered their son's "peccadilloes", refused his attempt at mission service, calling the stake president "judgmental" and "uncompassionate". They voiced their displeasure to all who would hear, including to their son, who adopted their attitude and decided if the Church didn't want him, he didn't want the Church, either! Their younger children listened and heard all that happened, and they, too, hardened their hearts at the "evil treatment" given their family by "the Church".

They began to lose interest in the Church. It required a lot of work and a lot of commitment, and they frankly didn't really see the advantage. They had only a rudimentary understanding of the concept of "ward family", and they saw no purpose in the constant efforts at unity: ward cookouts, home teaching, service projects. She had taken "her turn" in Primary and nursery, and he was tired of callings with young men and such that were boring (Scouting? who needs it?) and that wasted his genius for music and his interest in literature. So naturally, they declined almost every calling that came their way. Eventually, their Church attendance became sparse, and they lapsed into "inactivity". They still considered themselves Mormons, but it was more like a social identifier than an expression of heartfelt commitment.

How do you like my story?

[BenRaines]

I bet that happens a lot Vort.

Ben Raines

[Vort]

I bet that happens a lot Vort.

You may be right, but I hope you're mistaken. I hope it's a rare event.

[Crywithasmile87]

No pun intended...

This is kind of like saying "Has followed all the steps for making cookies except getting the ingredients out."

"Months and months" does not really qualify as a "long period of staying chaste."

You would have to ask the Lord to know this. In my opinion, no, a marriage based on lies and false pretenses cannot possibly be "eternal". As far as "legit", yes, the couple is legally married in the eyes of the law and of the Church. That fact does not change just because they may have been unrepentant fornicators.

No couple is sealed for all eternity merely on the basis of an ordinance. The sealing is affirmed and made efficacious by the holy spirit of promise, which surely cannot be present among those who have not repented of their sins.

"Just in case"...what? Just in case they actually wanted their marriage to be eternal?

No.

No.

Possibly. Or possibly they would be excommunicated for making a mockery of sacred covenants. Or possibly something else would happen.

I guarantee, it matters. Whether they receive some particular form of Church discipline or not is irrelevant to whether "it matters".

Once upon a time, there was a couple who called God their "heavenly Father", but they didn't really believe he was a Father. They thought he was a heavenly Auditor or heavenly Scorekeeper, keeping tabs on technicalities and marking down good and bad acts as if he were Santa Claus going over his naughty/nice list.

Not understanding the nature of God and their relationship to him, they fornicated before marriage. Since they were children of God who had been raised in the gospel, they understood they had done something bad and felt guilt for their sin. But they decided they could probably cover up their sin and no one would notice, and they'd be okay.

They went to their bishop and lied to his face, telling him that they were completely worthy to enter their heavenly Father's holy temple and make eternal covenants with him. They repeated these lies to their stake president, who smiled at them, prayed with them, and wished them all the best on their marital journey. Then, still filthy with their fornications, they entered the Holy Temple, knelt in that filthy state at God's altar, and made eternal covenants they were not worthy to pronounce.

They never told anyone about their fornication, and because she didn't get pregnant from the act (or maybe she did and they decided to abort the baby, neglecting to tell the bishop about that part, too), no one was the wiser. But a funny thing happened to this couple, only it wasn't very funny: They largely stopped progressing. Thirty years later, they still thought of their heavenly Father as an automated record keeper. They didn't bother to try to live commandments with exactness. At first, this was because they felt guilty about their premarital fornication; later, they began to justify themselves by looking down on their fellow Saints as simple (when they felt charitable) or hypocritical (the rest of the time) for worrying about things like shopping on Sundays when there were people in the world who were really hurting!!! (Besides, all the best sales were on Sundays, and they were no fools.)

When their oldest started sleeping with his girlfriend and partying around, they told him he shouldn't do that, but they lacked the spiritual maturity to give him any sort of insight into why he shouldn't or how he was damaging himself. How could they tell him? They never learned it themselves. And later, when their son decided he wanted to serve a mission, they encouraged him (maybe not overtly, but subtly) to hide his transgressions from the bishop. After all, they reasoned, those sins were no longer a part of him. Right? The fact he wanted to serve a mission was proof of that!

They were greatly offended when the stake president, who had discovered their son's "peccadilloes", refused his attempt at mission service, calling the stake president "judgmental" and "uncompassionate". They voiced their displeasure to all who would hear, including to their son, who adopted their attitude and decided if the Church didn't want him, he didn't want the Church, either! Their younger children listened and heard all that happened, and they, too, hardened their hearts at the "evil treatment" given their family by "the Church".

They began to lose interest in the Church. It required a lot of work and a lot of commitment, and they frankly didn't really see the advantage. They had only a rudimentary understanding of the concept of "ward family", and they saw no purpose in the constant efforts at unity: ward cookouts, home teaching, service projects. She had taken "her turn" in Primary and nursery, and he was tired of callings with young men and such that were boring (Scouting? who needs it?) and that wasted his genius for music and his interest in literature. So naturally, they declined almost every calling that came their way. Eventually, their Church attendance became sparse, and they lapsed into "inactivity". They still considered themselves Mormons, but it was more like a social identifier than an expression of heartfelt commitment.

How do you like my story?

Every response so far has been extremely helpful and insightful except for this one.

Thanks to everyone else though.

[sensibility]

I hope this is a hypothetical question, and that you aren't here looking for people to say it's fine to walk unworthily into the house of the Lord and to mock His ordinances by pretending to make sacred covenants whilst refusing to obey even the most basic tenents of the Gospel. Because it isn't fine. It is inviting the condemnation of God.

There is nothing to be gained by going to the temple unworthily. It's like partaking of the Sacrament unworthily -- the ordinance has no validity and no benefit to us. In fact, Christ says that it is eating and drinking damnation to our souls. Participating in sacred ordinances unworthily actually harms us more than abstaining, and we're commanded to refrain until we have repented of our sins.

The blessings of the temple are sealed upon us not through the words we say, or the clothes we wear, or the building we're in. They are sealed upon us 'through your faithfulness'. My interpretation of that phrase is that without the faithfulness -- without the broken heart and the contrite spirit and the determination to obey the Lord -- there is no sealing.

As other people have said, the legal standing of the marriage wouldn't be affected. But you can get a legal marriage in any JOP's office. We don't go to the temple for legal recognition, but for eternal covenants -- and those covenants are only valid for the penitent.

There is everything to be gained by owning up to any previous sin, going humbly through the repentance process, and allowing Christ's Atonement to fully heal us from our sins. The miracle of the Gospel is that after we have done that, we can walk into the temple, clean in every way and fully prepared and worthy to receive every promise and blessing the Lord has to offer us.

[talisyn]

It sounds as though you and your husband didn't really understand how serious temple marriages are, until after you got one lol. It's not too late! Go to your bishop, tell him what you told us, and get this behind you so you can progress. You'll be 'dammed' spiritually, like how you feel now, until you do. Funny how talking to bishops is almost always the right answer, yet not utilized nearly enough.

[Just_A_Guy]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

I'm not going to rule out the possibility of confession/repentance after death. But nor would I stake my eternal marriage on such a wholly speculative notion. The scriptures are very clear that this life is the time to prepare to meet God, and the Church leaders are similarly very clear that full repentance for infractions of the Law of Chastity can only come through seeking the assistance of a local bishop.

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

The Church doesn't need to officially "cancel" a sealing for the sealing to become invalid before God--all it takes is the unworthiness of one party or the other. However, once the repentance process (including confession) is complete I suspect your sealing will be deemed "valid" without having to be re-solemnized. I personally married my wife while I had some unresolved pornography issues. The repentance process was excruciatingly difficult for me, but at the end of it my wife asked our bishop if our sealing needed to be re-done. He said that it would not be necessary.

From a civil point of view, I don't think it's possible for any clergyman who has solemnized a marriage to later go back and "undo" a ceremony that was legally binding at the time.

BOTTOM LINE: The couple should see their bishop posthaste. Don't be stupid, like I was. It isn't worth it.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Every response so far has been extremely helpful and insightful except for this one.

Thanks to everyone else though.

So you didn't like my story, huh?

Well, it's pretty special to be singled out anyway. Thanks.

[pam]

Well I happened to like it. It made me think.

[lilered]

Totally agree with Mikbone. The marriage although performed in the Temple was not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. The recommend and thus the authority to receive a Temple Marriage was done so by being dishonest which prevents the marriage from being sealed as it should. To correct this, the sin must be confessed, forgiveness obtained, and justice served. Therefore, contact your Bishop and do what is right, let the consequence follow. Put the issue behind you and your wife and start afresh.

[talisyn]

So you didn't like my story, huh?

Well, it's pretty special to be singled out anyway. Thanks.

I thought it was pretty good.

[Palerider]

Well I happened to like it. It made me think.

and that could be dangerous.....

[Heavenguard]

Although I don't have anything to add to the subject in particular, I don't believe the poster was referring to Vort's story rather than the preceeding comments.

[ztodd]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

Thanks for the input!

Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

Frankly, I think you're asking the wrong questions.

[HEthePrimate]

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past?

A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed?

Thanks for the input!

Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

If they're married, they're married. The Church doesn't "revoke" marriages. If their Church leaders decided to excommunicate them, then I suppose they might not be regarded as "sealed" (though I'm not certain about that), but they would still be legally married, and the Church would recognize that. Depending on the local Church leaders' attitudes, my guess would be that if the couple had not sinned for a long time, chances are they would not be excommunicated. They might be disfellowshipped, or maybe not even that--I don't know. But it would seem rather pointless (to me) to make a huge issue of it so long after the fact.

HEP

[foreverafter]

it would seem rather pointless (to me) to make a huge issue of it so long after the fact.

Time is not repentance & does not take away from the seriousness of the sin. True repentance & the degree of remorse & suffering for the sin would be the same the day after the sin as 100 years after the sin. Most people who commit adultery or any form of abuse, never repent they just push it out of their minds for the rest of their life & become past feeling & thus destroy their chance to ever repent, while they go on telling themselves they are righteous so they can sleep at night.

Even many people who remarry after divorce live in an adulterous remarriage for the rest of their life, though they never think it's adulterous, (for the Prophets say a justified divorce is very rare), the ceremony or time does not equal repentance. They think that God has forgotten they weren't justified to divorce & remarry or that time & a new family makes everything ok now & they're forgiven & the marriage is valid. Most people think God as a short memory.

There's only one thing that makes marriage valid - worthiness. Worthiness to even get married plus worthiness during the marriage.

Edited June 3, 2009 by foreverafter

[Robert_Mason]

Most people think God has a short memory.

Am I wrong for finding the idea of this being true to be hilarious?

...

Many good points've been raised...

I think we're just repeating everything over and over again, though. In summary, I think this is the consensus:

You need to confess. Otherwise, you did not make a full repentance, and while your marriage is legal, and will continue to be legal, it is not a truly sealed marriage.

You must then do whatever else your Bishop tells you.

PS. I will be horrible embarrassed if I find out that you really were only speaking in the hypothetical, as opposed to what all of us are assuming. XD