The Marriage Ordinance

[Vanhin]

I would not have any problems attending a marriage or a religious ceremony of people of other faiths, even those of non-Christians. I would observe the rituals with great interest and respect.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Wingnut]

In the end it's still a sandwich. Two pieces of bread and something in the middle as filler. Changing what is inside changes they type of sandwich but not the fact it's still a sandwich.

Touché.

[GaySaint]

Traveler: Your post makes sense (and I think could have done without the analogy) - but at what time did God give up his authority on marriage and hand over the definition/authority to the state?

Moe: But is it good enough for God (enough to remove the fornication aspect)?

[Traveler]

What if you put peanut butter on both sides and jelly in the middle?

Then you have missed the point of the analogy and have confused it with technicalities that have little or nothing to add understanding to the point of discussion.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

Let me try and hash out something coherent in a short span of time. These comments are all based on LDS theology are will not translate well to other belief systems:

Baptisms performed by the proper authority are not binding for mortality. They are binding for eternity. I know it's a petty point to make, but I think it's important to agree at the start that we view a proper baptism as being an eternally binding agreement, a time span for which mortality is just a piece. (this might be debatable on minute details, but let's just let the principle stand).

Baptisms performed without the proper authority are not binding in any sense. Though they are not binding, they are wonderful events for the reasons others have pointed out. Regardless of authority, we should always celebrate when an individual genuinely commits him or herself to live a life of righteousness.

Marriage outside of the temple is not an ordinance. When a priesthood officer conducts a marriage ceremony outside of the temple, he marries the bride and groom "by virtue of the legal authority" granted him as an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (some may argue with me on this point because we do reference covenants in the civil marriage ceremony. However, covenants and ordinances do not maintain a one-to-one relationship)

The Lord is bound by baptism performed by proper authority. When a person is baptized, and if that person keeps his or her covenants by repenting, serving the Lord, keeping the commandments, etc, the Lord is bound by his promises to offer forgiveness for sin. He cannot break that promise.

The Lord is not bound by baptism performed without proper authority. This does not mean that the Lord cannot grant forgiveness to a person who hasn't been baptized. It only means he doesn't have to. He has no obligation. He may offer forgiveness to any person for any reason when they are not baptized. It is entirely at his discretion.

The Lord is bound to recognize marriage by priesthood authority. As with baptism, if two people make a covenant by priesthood authority, the Lord is obligated to recognize it. And since he must recognize it, he must acknowledge that the ordinance has lifted the restriction against sexual activity between the couple.

The Lord is not bound to recognize marriage by civil authority. He has no obligation to do so. However, He has chosen to do so (I submit as evidence that the Law of Chastity, as he has defined it, requires that a man and woman be legally and lawfully married). My personal interpretation of this is that it is a merciful act. There are so many people in the world that haven't heard the gospel, or had an opportunity to accept it, that He simply decided that as long as people would live the pattern of marriage that He has designated, it is enough for him. There is nothing about civil marriage that makes it a sufficient substitute other than the old saying, "Cause God said so."

I'm sure there's more I could say, but that is a good start.

But yes, I would gladly and anxiously attend any baptism, confirmation, ordination, marriage, or any other religious ceremony of another faith for any friend who felt I was close enough to be invited. I will celebrate any action that a person takes that brings them closer to the Lord.

[Maya]

Maya: If you want, leave out the homosexual components, and just discuss the authority of heterosexual marriages outside of the temple please. I really don't want to get into the "is homosexuality ok or not" argument, because that isn't the point of this topic.

Obviously my question does relate to same-sex marriage, so I would like this discussed, but saying that homosexuality is a sin doesn't really address my concerns.

Ok, apologise, my misunderstnding, I thougth we were talking of both. Should I delate it?

Authority of heterosexual marriages outside of the Temple.

Ok if people are married outside the Temple it is only for life.... In old times people did not get married, they just lived together and I consider that, as a sort of a marriage too, so why not today too. They all stil have the possibility to approve the work done for them in the Temple which rises their marriage/union to the level of eternity and opens the doors to everything according to how they lived their life.

[hordak]

Perhaps it is based on the earthly consequence? Kind of like "Higher law, lesser law"?

I'm baptized LDS, my neighbor is not, but it has little importance in this life for them (I have my sins washed away and make a covenant that makes me more accountable, they are still in the "same place" and will given the opportunity for an LDS baptism later.

Marriage on the other hand affect this life more. Adultery is adultery is adultery.

For example

Thou shalt not steal has great effect on not only the next life but on this life as well. Because of this it is taught to all (pretty much)and i believe God sees it valid anywhere it is taught.

Since adultery has huge consequence for this life as well God has taught this law to all and gives a way to avoid the sin (by recognizing civil marriage)

Tithing on the other hand, while it does have some earthy affect, doesn't carry the same earthy consequence. If a Protestant doesn't follow it it will not affect his community/ others in the way theft would.

Tithing is only valid ( if i told the Bishop i gave my 10% to the red cross it wouldn't count) in the church so that the funds are used for the right thing.

Baptism is only valid in the the church so the right covenants are made.

Just a thought.

[MarginOfError]

Actually, what you pose is an interesting hypothetical. If I were to encounter a situation where a group of people were lost on a tropical island with no contact with the outside world and were thereby required to develop their own society, I imagine I would give due respect to whatever society they decided upon. If they were to name Mr. Howell their chief and endow him with societal authority to declare a marriage, that's good enough for me.

Moe: But is it good enough for God (enough to remove the fornication aspect)?

That's hard to answer. At what point does a civil government receive God's recognition? That's a question that's rather impossible to answer.

Let's pose another scenario. A man and woman are engaged to be married. They are flying to Tonga for the wedding, but the plane crashes on an island and they are the sole survivors. They live according to the law of chastity for six months on the island but no rescue comes. Finally, the determine that there will be no rescue. Do they live out the rest of their existence on the island by the law of chastity? Do they begin their marital relations and start their family? Remember, there's no one on the island that has authority to marry them.

I guess the reference that really becomes of value is "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Ne 25:23). I'm inclined to think that if the couple (or the gang on Gilligan's Island) has done all that they can do, the Lord will be willing to overlook whatever indiscretions they lack the capacity to avoid.

[Traveler]

Traveler: Your post makes sense (and I think could have done without the analogy) - but at what time did God give up his authority on marriage and hand over the definition/authority to the state?

Moe: But is it good enough for God (enough to remove the fornication aspect)?

I do not believe G-d has given up his authority on marriage. The concepts of counterfeits have existed for ages especially in defining religion. But like religious counterfeits of the “kingdom of G-d” marriage has been counterfeited. However, there is a point where some “religions” are not attempting to counterfeit but to redefine. In such cases rather that worship G-d we find the worship of Satan or some other non-divinely enlightened thing. Such religions are in reality anti-religions. So it is with marriage there are counterfeits that may be tolerated but then there is the attempt to completely redefine and create an anti-marriage and call it a marriage.

Contrary to what a president of this country has said – just because we can is not a good reason for doing something.

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

Moe: Just to get my head around you post, is there any other imitation of ordinance (I can't think of a better way to say it...) in the church that the Lord has no obligation to recognize, but does?

I still just don't get why a civil marriage would be an exception - a point upon which it is ok to live the lesser law. I realize there might not be an answer. Still, speculation begins the search for truth, right?

[Maya]

We dont even need to get crashed on an island... just think of your ancestors. In my country marriage came around 1300... that is about 1300 years of... adultery??

[Maya]

GS I thik it is never OK to live a lower law, IF you know the laws and are able to live them. Sometimes we just can not change the lifecircumstances to fir the higher law, but if we would like to do that it will be read to our benefit. Those again who do not know the laws, will be forgiven. You cant break a law you dont know/understand of.

[hordak]

In the end it's still a sandwich. Two pieces of bread and something in the middle as filler. Changing what is inside changes they type of sandwich but not the fact it's still a sandwich.

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/6e092dabbf170a90http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/7cea90380e5e3938

You can even add more bread and it's still a sandwich.

[GaySaint]

Moe: My LDS side would want to say they are committed sin. My practical side would say they are justified. Then my LDS side says "Hopefully God will send an angel to marry them," hahaha.

Hordak: (Sorry for this, Anatess) In regards to the effect of these things on the next life, I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't, but I DO have reason to believe I will be BETTER off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't - even if it is only the small benefit of knowing my heart was in the right place...

But I think to just about everyone here, that is still not justification for my 'counterfit' marriage; not in the Lord's eyes, and not in theirs personally.

I guess I just really don't like the "lesser law, greater law" concept when that isn't applied in any other place in the church. What would be the point other than to justify people who aren't members? And won't that justification be irrelevant if they later convert and are baptized?

What do you see is the point to the lesser law?

[Guest]

Thanks to MOE, I'm forming an elementary opinion... can you strike down which parts are not correct or are debateable?

My opinion:

By God's grace, marriage does not require proper priesthood authority to be valid in mortal existence. But, such a marriage will have to follow the structure defined by eternal law. Therefore, a marriage does not have to be in the form recognized by the law of the land as "legal" to be valid as long as it is in the form recognized by God as valid.

For example, if Gilligan would decree that in his island Skipper can only marry the Professor and Mary Ann can only marry Ginger, then Mary Ann can marry the Professor illegally (by asking for God's blessing themselves), have children, and still be married correctly in the eyes of God.

But if Mary Ann marries Ginger then their marriage is not acceptable in the eyes of God.

Is this correct?

[Just_A_Guy]

No, they are not, because Mr. Howell lacks legal authority. But if they were to be married by the Skipper, then all is well.

Well . . . probably not, actually. (That's why I avoided using the Skipper )

[Guest]

What do you see is the point to the lesser law?

I can see the point of the lesser law as being to fulfill the first commandment of having children.

But then this opens the discussion to... so, if 2 people are incapable of having children and they know it, then their marriage is not valid...

well, okay, they can adopt.

[Just_A_Guy]

I guess the reference that really becomes of value is "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Ne 25:23). I'm inclined to think that if the couple (or the gang on Gilligan's Island) has done all that they can do, the Lord will be willing to overlook whatever indiscretions they lack the capacity to avoid.

In a parallel vein, then: If a person has done everything (s)he can reasonably be expected to do to find a mate, but just can't--is (s)he then justified in gratifying him/herself through pornography and/or masturbation?

[Just_A_Guy]

Moe: Just to get my head around you post, is there any other imitation of ordinance (I can't think of a better way to say it...) in the church that the Lord has no obligation to recognize, but does?

Sure--priesthood healings. There's biblical precedent (too lazy to look it up) where the disciples see strangers laying hands on (and healing) the sick in the name of Jesus, and they ask Him about it, and He tells the disciples some variant of "he who is not against us is for us".

(Though as a doctrinal matter, I suppose you could say that those healings were done by faith which can function independently of the presence of priesthood-holders.)

[GaySaint]

Ok. So the consensus is that God recognizes civil marriages as a counterfeit form of eternal marriage because he can, and because they are done in the same form as eternal marriages (possibly because this helps fulfill the first commandment to have children), but doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages on the same principles (although he could, he chooses not to) because it doesn’t counterfeit the form of eternal marriage correctly.

Strangely, that actually sort of makes sense to me… haha. I still see problems, but this is the closest I’ve come to understanding this particular doctrine.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ok. So the consensus is that God recognizes civil marriages as a counterfeit form of eternal marriage because he can, and because they are done in the same form as eternal marriages (possibly because this helps fulfill the first commandment to have children), but doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages on the same principles (although he could, he chooses not to) because it doesn’t counterfeit the form of eternal marriage correctly.

Strangely, that actually sort of makes sense to me… haha. I still see problems, but this is the closest I’ve come to understanding this particular doctrine.

Well, it's not my view. Can't speak for others. I still think it all boils down to the partners' commitment to live in the manner the Lord has prescribed.

Oddly, I agree with a lot of gay-marriage supporters that a lot of straight unions don't deserve the label of "marriage" at all. I suspect there's going to be a decent number of people at the last day who will find themselves called on the carpet for fornication, and their state-issued marriage certificates won't help them one iota.

[GaySaint]

JAG: Do you think it is possible for a gay couple to commit to live in a manner they believe the Lord has prescribed for them, or does it not matter in that regard (or is this a future possibility as you alluded to earlier)?

I'm also curious as to why you don't think an LDS gay person could believe entirely that being gay is OK? You mentioned that most of your gay friends were once LDS so you wouldn't attend a marriage ceremony, more or less, because they "know better." I see this situation no different than I see someone who was once LDS changing their beliefs to align with another religious sect - and I'm sure anyone who has done that would claim they feel they were directed by God in that decision. I have found that for the surprising most part of LDS gay men I know, they have had the same feelings (I know you can only answer for yourself here in spite of the experience of others, but I would like some expanding of your earlier opinion, if possible).

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG: Do you think it is possible for a gay couple to commit to live in a manner they believe the Lord has prescribed for them, or does it not matter in that regard (or is this a future possibility as you alluded to earlier)?

I think the Lord might not hold them accountable for fornication if they honestly think God approves of their union.

I'm also curious as to why you don't think an LDS gay person could believe entirely that being gay is OK? You mentioned that most of your gay friends were once LDS so you wouldn't attend a marriage ceremony, more or less, because they "know better."

Yeah, I edited that post a couple of times and you may not have kept the last version. I think there's a difference between a) leaving Mormonism because you just can't accept some doctrine, falling in with a church that also happens to teach that gay sex is OK, and later entering into a gay union under the auspices of that church; versus b) finding out you're gay, leaving Mormonism because it won't sanction the way you want to live, and deliberately seeking out a church that validates the choices you've already made. Off-hand, I can think of four gay friends of mine who were Mormon at one point. In every one of their cases, it wasn't the doctrine--it was the sex. The one of those friends who did select a new church, deliberately chose it for its stance on gay rights.

I see this situation no different than I see someone who was once LDS changing their beliefs to align with another religious sect - . . .

The difference being, that one was governed by his heart and his head while the other (I'm speaking of a hypothetical, here; not anyone I know personally) was governed primarily by his hormones.

. . . and I'm sure anyone who has done that would claim they feel they were directed by God in that decision. I have found that for the surprising most part of LDS gay men I know, they have had the same feelings (I know you can only answer for yourself here in spite of the experience of others, but I would like some expanding of your earlier opinion, if possible).

Sure; and that's why I'm glad it's God making these eternal judgments and not me.

But as far as people I know personally: You try not to be a judgmental horse's posterior; but when you're put on the spot all you can do is call 'em like you see 'em. At the end of the day, you're still being asked to "celebrate" a couple's commitment to keep having sex in a proscribed manner with each other.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Vanhin]

Church leaders can perform civil marriages which are not priesthood ordinances. For example, our bishop when I was kid, married my brother and his wife, who were not ready for the temple yet but wanted to be married. It was a simple ceremony performed under civil laws in our meeting house.

The Church recognizes legal and lawful marriage for purposes of adhering to the law of chastity. Many old members and converts are married legally and not yet sealed to one another.

Regards,

Vanhin

[hordak]

Hordak: (Sorry for this, Anatess) In regards to the effect of these things on the next life, I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't, but I DO have reason to believe I will be BETTER off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't - even if it is only the small benefit of knowing my heart was in the right place...

I'm not speaking of SSM but of God accepting civil marriage but not baptism. Let me give you another analogy:D

I tell my kids that in order to have their friends over (exaltation) they must clean their room (marriage) . My son goes to town and puts his clothes away, toys away, breaks out the vacuum etc. (Temple marriage) so i accept this. My daughter decides to ball everything up and put it in the corner and under the bed.(civil marriage) It isn't what i wanted per say but will keep her and her friends from getting hurt on the toys (adultery). And latter i will give her the chance to clean it right (temple work for the dead) since she had a lesser understanding of what clean her room is.(Non LDS)

I decide if my kids eat dinner they get to go outside and play.

Dinner comes and my son eats everything (LDS Baptism) as such i know he is nourished and will have what he needs. My daughter decides half is enough for her(other baptism) but i know she will not have what she needs. Therefor i do not recognize her half eaten plate and will not let her go outside until she finishes it. Even if i have to put it in the fridge and let her eat it for breakfast(spirit prison)

As far as you response i half agree..

I TOO have no reason to believe that YOU will be worse off in the next life if YOU marry YOUR partner than YOU would be if YOU don't.(not yelling just emphasizing the change)

Some might call it a mockery, but i think it would fall under the "other baptism" category. While it will not be accepted (per current doctrine) There's no reason to believe you are mocking God, anymore then Mother Teressa was mocking God by doing all her missionary work for the Catholics as opposed to for the LDS church.

Look at PC, he does a lot of good even though he is not "authorized" (from an LDS stand point) but we wouldn't call his teaching mockery .

but I DO have reason to believe I will be BETTER off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't - even if it is only the small benefit of knowing my heart was in the right place...

This depends on your views. If you don't think SSM is a sin, i can see how you would believe that.

In conclusion i don't think your desire to have SSM is a mockery of real marriage anymore then my Catholic neighbors communion is a mockery of LDS sacrament.(i don't see them as mockery at all) However as per Doctrine i don't think SSM would give you a "leg up" on the other side anymore then Baptist Baptize (neither are considered valid) and my point was just to show how civil marriage can be legit while other baptism is not