The Marriage Ordinance


GaySaint
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do suppose there are already forms of marriage the church doesn't recognize that the law does (common law, comes to mind). To me, this seems like proof that if gay marriage were legal, the church would still not have to recognize it (as they have not been forced to recognize common law marriages). How does this play into the picture? Does anyone know the reasoning why common law marriages, specifically, aren’t recognized by the church?

I ran into this once as a missionary, but wasn’t given any reason other than “the couple isn’t really married.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do suppose there are already forms of marriage the church doesn't recognize that the law does (common law, comes to mind). To me, this seems like proof that if gay marriage were legal, the church would still not have to recognize it (as they have not been forced to recognize common law marriages). How does this play into the picture? Does anyone know the reasoning why common law marriages, specifically, aren’t recognized by the church?

I ran into this once as a missionary, but wasn’t given any reason other than “the couple isn’t really married.”

I would agree with that. When i was married (By the JOP) my wife and i made vows. I believe these vows are what make marriage sacred and we take them very seriously. (still waiting on the "for richer" part:D) AFAIK a common law marriage has no such thing. It is simply meeting certain requirements by the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Not that I can think of. But I can't give a really convincing answer of why. My comments are based on observation. I'm afraid I can't be much more helpful than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

No. And I say that without hesitation because marriage is not about sexual gratification. So I suppose the couple on the island would not have any hope of justification if they simply engaged in sexual intercourse with no intent for a committed relationship with an eye toward serving the Lord and raising a posterity unto him.

The modification to your parallel vein that would make the person justified is: A person had done everything (s)he can reasonably be expected to do to find a mate, but just can't--that person is then justified in not entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look! I'm starting a thread! I don't know why I'm so nervous ;)

On another thread we were talking about other ordinances (and comparing them to marriage) - specifically, baptisms. It was my thought that there aren't very many members of the church who wouldn't go to a friend or family's baptism of another faith and celebrate with them, and wondered why the same couldn't happen for marriage (either a friend or family member's same-sex marriage or a civil marriage outside of the temple).

To me, the comparison seems valid – that just because you don’t believe something has the proper authority or is done correctly, doesn’t mean you can’t still celebrate and be happy for the person doing the best they can do in the circumstances they find themselves in.

But some disagreed, even going as far to claim that they wouldn’t celebrate in a baptism of another faith – and therefore, they wouldn’t in a marriage outside of the temple either.

If we talk specifically about ordinances and non-ordinances, I don’t understand this. Dravin spent a lot of time with me discussing the importance of marriage between one woman and one man outside of the temple, and why and how God endorses these marriages – but if the same principles don’t apply to other ordinances (IE, baptisms outside of the church), why is marriage a special case?

I have my own opinions as to why and how God can recognize a marriage outside of the temple for this life only (in effect: God gave power to man to rule the earth and bind on earth but not in Heaven. The priesthood is required to bind in Heaven. But if this is true, there is no indication that the same power used to bind on earth could not be used between two men or two women, as there are no conditions upon which the power to bind on earth is predicated. This power is given to man to bind on earth simply because we have been given juristiction over the world. Of course, we could also discuss if using this power to bind on earth contrary to God's will is unrighteous dominion...).

Whew! That was long.

Thoughts?

"U DA MAN!!!" See, it is not hard at all. :P Sorry for not delving into the thread from page one.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOE: I think you just hit upon one of my personal justifications for the life I now live (choosing to allow myself to fall in love) - how can I claim I have done everything I can to find a mate if I completely and purposely exclude the group of people I'm capable of having a relationship with?

Ok, that was a bit off topic, but just hit me as I read your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Can somebody answer this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOE: I think you just hit upon one of my personal justifications for the life I now live (choosing to allow myself to fall in love) - how can I claim I have done everything I can to find a mate if I completely and purposely exclude the group of people I'm capable of having a relationship with?

Ok, that was a bit off topic, but just hit me as I read your post.

I'll answer this as distantly and objectively as I can because I can't possibly answer it in a way that is particularly sensitive to your situation. Please understand I mean no offense and that this has no bearing on how I feel about you personally.

Because relationships with the people you are capable of having relationships with would not fit the pattern that the Lord defined for marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do suppose there are already forms of marriage the church doesn't recognize that the law does (common law, comes to mind). To me, this seems like proof that if gay marriage were legal, the church would still not have to recognize it (as they have not been forced to recognize common law marriages). How does this play into the picture? Does anyone know the reasoning why common law marriages, specifically, aren’t recognized by the church?

I ran into this once as a missionary, but wasn’t given any reason other than “the couple isn’t really married.”

i can't speak for other states but the reality is (in alabama) common law marriages aren't really recognized. they claim we have them but we don't if you really look into it. when applying for insurance etc you have to me married, common law doesn't work. if you want to get a divorce and you are fighting over property or kids you have to actually go down and file for a marriage license have it signed and then file for the divorce for it to go to court. if you can't get a "real divorce" without the paper then common law isn't good enough. by that reasoning i say we don't really accept common law anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't speak for other states but the reality is (in alabama) common law marriages aren't really recognized. they claim we have them but we don't if you really look into it. when applying for insurance etc you have to me married, common law doesn't work. if you want to get a divorce and you are fighting over property or kids you have to actually go down and file for a marriage license have it signed and then file for the divorce for it to go to court. if you can't get a "real divorce" without the paper then common law isn't good enough. by that reasoning i say we don't really accept common law anymore.

But when has it ever been that our doctrine is based on what the land says is legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody answer this one?

When a couple comes to the gate of heaven, would Michael allow these couple who choose civil marriage or a baptized person outside the authoritated priesthood into the celestial kingdom? I think you already know the answer.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

Among Latter-day Saints the term civil marriage means a marriage performed solely by civil authority as distinguished from an eternal or a celestial marriage, which is performed both by civil authority and by that power which binds on earth and seals eternally in the heavens. Civil marriages are performed by man's authority and last until death or divorce separates the parties; celestial marriages are by God's authority, and the unions endure in time and in eternity.

For those who are not qualified and worthy to enter into the Lord's order of matrimony, civil marriages are proper and honorable and there is no sin attached to the relationship that results from them. But for a true saint, one who loves the Lord and has in his heart the hope of eternal life, no marriage will prove satisfactory but one that is eternal. President Joseph F. Smith expressed the feelings of those who believe and know the truth when he said that he would rather go himself to the grave than associate with a woman outside the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, P.146)

The church still performs civil marriages by an authorized bishop or stake president. But, the church only recognize any civil marriage between MAN and WOMAN as it was constituted in the Garden of Eden when it was performed for both Adam and Eve.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, being concerned with the growth of its members, fosters and encourages marriage, teaching that all individuals who are mentally and physically able to beget sound bodies should enter into the marriage state and become parents. Concerning this the Prophet Joseph received by revelation in March, 1831, the following:

"And again, verily I say unto you, that who so forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

"Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation."

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. And I say that without hesitation because marriage is not about sexual gratification. So I suppose the couple on the island would not have any hope of justification if they simply engaged in sexual intercourse with no intent for a committed relationship with an eye toward serving the Lord and raising a posterity unto him.

So if Gilligan and Mary Ann are on the island alone, they are OK deeming themselves "married" and having sexual intercourse--but only if they intend to create children at some point?

Because, if you're already together on the desert island and it looks like you will remain so for the rest of your natural lives, I see little benefit that "marriage" will bring to them other than justifying sexual relations.

(Not trying to be combative; just exploring the hypothetical a little more.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I can think of. But I can't give a really convincing answer of why. My comments are based on observation. I'm afraid I can't be much more helpful than that.

MOE, what is the Church's position here, exactly?

I mean, there's "common-law marriage" as in "fulfilled the requirements for such in the state where they live" (which, in Utah, means they call themselves "married", among other things), and then there's "common-law marriage" as a euphemism for "shacking up".

Does the Church really refuse to acknowledge an otherwise-legal common-law marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Gilligan and Mary Ann are on the island alone, they are OK deeming themselves "married" and having sexual intercourse--but only if they intend to create children at some point?

Because, if you're already together on the desert island and it looks like you will remain so for the rest of your natural lives, I see little benefit that "marriage" will bring to them other than justifying sexual relations.

(Not trying to be combative; just exploring the hypothetical a little more.)

I was just thinking about that same thing. Drawing out MOE's hypothetical a little more -- engaged couple crash-lands on deserted island, remains chaste for 6 months, sees no prospect of rescue, moves on with life and family. Since marriage (or "marriage") isn't only about sexual gratification, should these two only have sex when they are intending and trying to reproduce? And is it realistic to expect, that once they engage in sexual relations -- even if initially only for that purpose, that they would not continue to engage for physical reasons alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOE, what is the Church's position here, exactly?

I mean, there's "common-law marriage" as in "fulfilled the requirements for such in the state where they live" (which, in Utah, means they call themselves "married", among other things), and then there's "common-law marriage" as a euphemism for "shacking up".

Does the Church really refuse to acknowledge an otherwise-legal common-law marriage?

My understanding is that common-law marriage dictates that a couple is considered legally married after they have been living together for a fixed amount of time (I've often heard seven years). Why would the Lord reward and recognize said seven years of breaking the law of chastity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

One other thought:

While it is right to try to engage in a sexual relationship in such a way as to minimize the spiritual damage LDS theology teaches that such a relationship causes--the relationship is still not divinely approved, and it is still damaging.

It would be like a thief who makes it a practice to rob only the big chain stores while leaving the mom-and-pop shops alone. Yeah, that's very nice of him; and yeah, if he hadn't made such a decision, the consequences of his actions might be a lot more severe and widespread.

But his decision still doesn't deserve my support, because at the end of the day--he's still robbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi: I highly doubt it.

JAG: So you don't support civil marriages for heterosexual couples, for the same reason? Or was your last post limited to same-sex unions?

Wing: As Pam has put it on these forums before:

“Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.”

LDS.org

So I think there are wholesome justifications for physical relations more than simply procreation.

But I do believe that a gay couple is fully capable of filling this particular (quoted) purpose of physical relations in marriage as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that common-law marriage dictates that a couple is considered legally married after they have been living together for a fixed amount of time (I've often heard seven years). Why would the Lord reward and recognize said seven years of breaking the law of chastity?

I just double-checked the common-law marriage statute, and in point of fact (and this sort of goes back to what GaySaint was asking)--the state doesn't recognize common law marriage either, until one of the parties has gone to court and asked it to recognize the relationship. (Applicable statute here).

Practically speaking, the only reason you do this is so that a couple that has been shacking up and is now splitting up, can have the court resolve property-division issues under conventional divorce law. (If you just want to memorialize your union, it's cheaper and easier to just get a marriage license and a JOP.)

But, in theory, if I go ahead and get court certification of an existing common-law marriage: would the Church then recognize that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when has it ever been that our doctrine is based on what the land says is legal?

you can't get sealed unless you are first married according to the laws of the land. that is church doctrine/procedure based on what the law of the land says. you can't have a child sealed to you that isn't biologically yours unless first legally adopted. there is a lot our church does based solely on the laws of the land and not doctrine. but this is getting off topic. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just double-checked the common-law marriage statute, and in point of fact (and this sort of goes back to what GaySaint was asking)--the state doesn't recognize common law marriage either, until one of the parties has gone to court and asked it to recognize the relationship. (Applicable statute here).

Practically speaking, the only reason you do this is so that a couple that has been shacking up and is now splitting up, can have the court resolve property-division issues under conventional divorce law. (If you just want to memorialize your union, it's cheaper and easier to just get a marriage license and a JOP.)

But, in theory, if I go ahead and get court certification of an existing common-law marriage: would the Church then recognize that?

lol i think i already said this.... ;) and if i recall correctly the church only recognizes it from the point it received court certification. as far as i know the court does not back date the records to the time you claim to have been common law married. though i could be wrong on that part of it. lol

edit: if you have a witness to the marriage date claim you can back date it lol just remembered a situation that we had when i was rs pres... thus the reason i know this lol

Edited by Gwen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG: So you don't support civil marriages for heterosexual couples, for the same reason? Or was your last post limited to same-sex unions?

You're referring to #66? I'm having trouble seeing how heterosexual civil marriage factors into that equation at all.

I'd certainly say (and have said) that it's possible for some heterosexual relationships to constitute fornication even though there's a marriage certificate somewhere, though I certainly don't think they all do.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't get sealed unless you are first married according to the laws of the land. that is church doctrine/procedure based on what the law of the land says. you can't have a child sealed to you that isn't biologically yours unless first legally adopted. there is a lot our church does based solely on the laws of the land and not doctrine. but this is getting off topic. lol

Gwen you are leading me closer to an answer to my original question...

What if, the law of the land does not have any "valid" marital laws? I tried to illustrate this using the example of Gilligan's Island only recognizing same-sex marriage as legal. Does that then make all the inhabitants of that island doomed to being single? Remember, you can't be sealed by proxy unless you were first married on earth.

Or, is it then okay for a man and a woman in the island to marry illegally by simply asking God's blessing on their union?

See, this is an important question for me. Because, my stance has always been that the US government needs to get out of the marriage business and leave that to the church - complete separation. The US Government can then just do contractual unions which can be anybody to anybody - husband to wife, cousin to cousin, gay to gay, lesbian to lesbian, father to daughter... anybody that needs legal means to obtain property rights, medical privacy, inheritance, and any other government privileges enjoyed by married couples today.

So that, when there is no legal marriage anymore, what will the church then recognize as "valid"? You can't say any marriages performed by other churches because there are tons of people who do not belong to any church.

Does this make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share