The Marriage Ordinance


GaySaint
 Share

Recommended Posts

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."

This doesn't answer the question Hemi. The question was - what if the land does not have laws providing for civil marriage recognized as "valid" by the church? That's the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This doesn't answer the question Hemi. The question was - what if the land does not have laws providing for civil marriage recognized as "valid" by the church? That's the question.

Who is the govern authority of that island makes the law. If the law states this is the law. Then we can presume, it is lawful as to a civil union.

It may not be lawful with other nations if they decided to move off the Island. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the govern authority of that island makes the law. If the law states this is the law. Then we can presume, it is lawful as to a civil union.

It may not be lawful with other nations if they decided to move off the Island. :P

Actually, Gilligan is the authority of the island and makes all the laws and he states that heterosexual civil marriage is unlawful.

Now what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let put forth a question that may come to past very soon: if the law in the nation changes to allow same gender marriages, would the church recognizes this constituted marriage?

I don't think the church ever will. I know people can conclude that because we changed our policy to allow blacks to hold priesthood keys that we are also, eventually, going to open up marriage to homosexuals. Somehow, I don't see this as happening at all regardless of the legality of homosexual marriages.

But, this is just my own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Gilligan is the authority of the island and makes all the laws and he states that heterosexual civil marriage is unlawful.

Now what?

Move...or live the law. They have a choice. :D

We could have a vote and cast Gilligan out of office. But then, the professor will come back, acting as a federal island judge and state, it was unconstitutional. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Move...or live the law. They have a choice. :D

We could have a vote and cast Gilligan out of office. But then, the professor will come back, acting as a federal island judge and state, it was unconstitutional. :P

Okay, that makes sense. Yes, I would move in this case. Swim to Hawaii or something. I think this is one of the reasons America is such a beacon for the rest of the world. As it is now, it really provides a lot of opportunity - not only financial but also, and more importantly, spiritual.

Let me bring this into a bigger, more relevant, example. Let's say, the island is actually a country with about 350 million people. The church, obviously, would want to have a presence there. But, that island do not have any laws on civil marriage. What will be the church's stance on the "lesser law" for those who are not eligible for temple marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand your posting Gwen, I was married only in the temple, is my temple marriage not lawful?

if you are married in the temple you are also married according to the laws of the land. in countries where temple "marriages" are not recognized you have get married outside of the temple and then be sealed. you can not be sealed/married without a legal marriage first.

i was "only married in the temple" i brought home a paper that says

marriage for time and eternity this certifies that..... were joined in the holy bonds of matrimony for time and eternity, according to the ordinance of god and the laws of the land, in.... temple.... on....date

a few days later i received a marriage certificate in the mail from the state of alabama.

since there are a few hypothetical situations out there... something that amused me. the temple usually takes the marriage license after it's been signed and mails it in to the state themselves. my husband and i were the first marriage in the temple here and they gave it back to us to send in. i often wondered "what if..." what if we lost it, or it got lost in the mail and it never became legal for the state? are we still sealed? was our honeymoon in sin?

i know now that we would have the witnesses and could re submit a new license back dated but still.... lol

even back dated the discrepancy would show .... state certificate reads..

certifies that.... were united in the holy bonds of matrimony by... on (sealing date).... as appears of record in my office in marriage record book.... page... date (4 days after the sealing date)... judge of probate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatass - resounds the polygamy issue where the church was at first 'willing to break' the law of the land. But, through seeking guidance of the Lord, it was the Savior who overturns the polygamy principle for the church.

I do concur. I do see something more sinister coming in a decade or sooner. I do believe there is going to be a final national addendum that overturned all the stated by compellation; creating its own definition of marriage and structure. What will the church do then? Even though, the stated will have no say so in debating its own accord, this is where I do believe the prophet will need to see guidance from the Lord on what to do. My own opinion here, I believe at this point, the church will need to fight it lawfully at first and eventually, if they are still in control of the state, break off from the union or stopped all temple marriage in order to preserve this sacred ordinance. When this happen, I do believe the nation is done and turned over to GOD’s henchmen (destroyers – based on what Lord stated for this land of Zion to live His laws or be casted off).

You are right though, this land is a beacon to the world to come and be free to live your beliefs. Even Joseph stated in the last days, it will be land of haven and safety from the world that gone wrong.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There is one point you may have missed. It is the concept of G-d recognition. By covenant G-d can only recognize what he commands and thus only reward obedience to what he has commanded. In all cases when someone is obedient they are recognized and rewarded. He has commanded that men and women marry each other and to be loyal to each other in that marriage. Loyalty to G-d therefore is defined by preserving one’s self for the covenant (not committing fornications) and preserving one’s self during the covenant (not committing adultery).

So if a man marries a woman G-d recognizes that and rewards it. G-d has given an additional commandment to his covenant children – for example, he has commanded that they marry in the temple according to the new and everlasting covenant. There are questions about those that do not marry in this life and G-d has revealed through his Prophet that G-d will grant a fulfillment via proxy for the dead.

What happens to those that receive commandments by covenant from G-d but are disobedient? We learn from scripture and experience that such things lead to unhappiness and bondage which as a state that in the scriptures is called Hell or damnation.

There is one other misgiving that many people have – not at all related to you post. This is the misunderstanding that if a covenant is not specifically made an individual is not subject to the commandments or the law of that covenant.

This is not really true and is in part the reason this thread is discussing common law marriage. When someone engages in an activity then the laws or commandment of that activity automatically apply – regardless if an agreement is made.

For example if someone is trying to rent an apartment and someone moves into that apartment having not made an agreement all the laws associated with ownership and renting are still in effect and the person can be evicted from the apartment even if they send money to the owner for rent. But if the owner keeps the money then the law concerning renting of the property applies – even though there was no agreement. The point here is that by taking action one becomes subject to covenants, even if they do not know of or agree with the covenants.

The point I am trying to make is that we are all bound by the laws of G-d regardless of how we may feel about G-d or the laws. Just because G-d does not destroy us does not mean he has accepted what we are doing – we are given an opportunity to “repent”. But those that are not obedient to the law cannot receive the blessing of the law – ever.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler: Did God command that man and woman should marry civilly? I don't think God commands anything for this life only, and if that is the case then the only commandment, covenant, etc. is eternal marriage - which brings us back to the original question as to why the church would recognize a union that is NOT the union God commanded (because it isn't the new and everlasting covenant).

As Wing pointed out, civil marriage is not a religious covenant at all, it's a legal one. It makes even less sense that the church would recognize a civil marriage for its own members. God's marriage is not civil marriage. God's marriage is the temple sealing.

Or did I miss something in your post that explained how this works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the responses, but I did want to mention one thing.

Maybe God recognizes marriages outside the temple because there is still a promise or covenant made between two people. It seems a covenant or promise betwen two is important. At a baptism of another faith, an individual may promise something, or they may not, but there can be no covenant or two way promise because there is no authority to honor the covenant. There are no legal witnesses.

At a wedding outside the temple there are at least two people that make a promise to each other. That seems to make that particular event unique.

It may be way off base, but it makes sense to me.

As far as God honoring a marriage outside the temple, it is honored until death because that's how it was made.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

What do you mean by "recognize"? I think the key in understanding this (as I have stated earlier but I guess got passed over or I didn't say it very well) is knowledge of what a covenant is in the LDS faith. The ordinance is to symbolize the covenant but the more important aspect of it is the covenant itself. In celestial marriage, the covenant is not just between two people but is a binding partnership with God. In non-celestial marriages maybe God "recognizes" the covenant those two people make with each other but God is not bound to that or is part of the covenant. LDS believe that a temple marriage done under the right authority allows a binding agreement with God and without that authority God is not bound to it. That binding covenant agreement allows for additional blessings in this life, this isn't just making it continue into the next. A civil marriage is not a covenant with God.

The same issue for baptism, there is a covenant formed with God also when done in the right authority. With the proper authority a person falls under the Abrahamic covenant, and becomes part of the covenant people with baptism that wouldn't be there with any other baptism.

So, to me "recognize" is not the same thing as making a covenant with God. Is it to you? Understanding the significance of covenants, which is different than just a commandment is key in understanding the doctrine of eternal marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler: Did God command that man and woman should marry civilly? I don't think God commands anything for this life only, and if that is the case then the only commandment, covenant, etc. is eternal marriage - which brings us back to the original question as to why the church would recognize a union that is NOT the union God commanded (because it isn't the new and everlasting covenant).

As Wing pointed out, civil marriage is not a religious covenant at all, it's a legal one. It makes even less sense that the church would recognize a civil marriage for its own members. God's marriage is not civil marriage. God's marriage is the temple sealing.

Or did I miss something in your post that explained how this works.

I do believe you missed something in my post. Just because a marriage is performed in the temple does not mean that it is recognized by G-d - See D&C 132. Civil marriages are allowed by G-d but only until a person dies. What G-d recognizes is eternal.

There are many things associated with mortality that G-d allows but they all end when we die. Only that which he recognizes will extend beyond death. The warning is that those that engage in activities, covenants, oath, obligations, commitments and promises that cannot extend beyond the grave and do not repent will be bound by eternal chains forged by the activities, covenants, oath, obligations, commitments and promises that were made. I personally believe that if someone rejects the council of G-d – becoming an agent to themselves – that G-d will grant them the desires of their heart even if they become bonded slaves void of freedom.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have attended several weddings and baptisms, outside of the Church of Jeus Christ. I celebrate these occasions with them. I know that they are not expected to live by a gospel that they do not know. You can't really know it until you have been taught it and gained a testimony of it. I was married civilly to a non-member before being sealed in the temple. I think I would like to share my thoughts on the difference between the Lord recognizng non-temple marriages and baptisms.

a non-Lds baptism does not lead to an LDS baptism

a civil heterosexual marriage does have the potential to lead to a temple marriage, it holds the basic things needed for the temple ordinance, just add God. It is a tiny seedling of a temple sealing, if you will.

One leads away from the path to exaltation, the other leads towards it.

Judge it by its fruits.

In the millenium, the government will be upon His shoulders, I believe (and this is purely my idea) that at that time, only a temple sealing will be valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beefche: That is what I don't understand. Civil marriage is a marriage performed without the proper authority (perhaps I could go as far to say that it is an imitation of a sealing). A baptism of another faith performed without the proper authority could be said to be an imitation of a baptism. The priest who would perform both has the same authority to speak for God in performing both (in that, in the LDS view, he wouldn't have any). What gives him authority to bind the marriage so that they are married in the eyes of the Lord, but not so that they are baptized in the eyes of the Lord?

That is incorrect. For a civil marriage they have the authority to marry for the duration of mortality.

:)

Edited by RanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, hey, GS!

I think the confusion here lies in a misunderstanding of the scriptures that describe the difference between earthly and heavenly authority.

A police officer has earthly authority in some things. He does not, however, have any heavenly authority.

Heavenly authority is discussed in Matthew 16:19:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Earthly authorities have the power to bind a marriage on earth. To be bound on earth and heaven requires a different authority.

Marriage on earth is a lesser ordinance than eternal marriage. It is a gateway to recognition of the greater ordinance.

Traveler: Did God command that man and woman should marry civilly? I don't think God commands anything for this life only, and if that is the case then the only commandment, covenant, etc. is eternal marriage - which brings us back to the original question as to why the church would recognize a union that is NOT the union God commanded (because it isn't the new and everlasting covenant).

As Wing pointed out, civil marriage is not a religious covenant at all, it's a legal one. It makes even less sense that the church would recognize a civil marriage for its own members. God's marriage is not civil marriage. God's marriage is the temple sealing.

Or did I miss something in your post that explained how this works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, hey, GS!

I think the confusion here lies in a misunderstanding of the scriptures that describe the difference between earthly and heavenly authority.

A police officer has earthly authority in some things. He does not, however, have any heavenly authority.

Heavenly authority is discussed in Matthew 16:19:

Earthly authorities have the power to bind a marriage on earth. To be bound on earth and heaven requires a different authority.

Marriage on earth is a lesser ordinance than eternal marriage. It is a gateway to recognition of the greater ordinance.

FT, in a country where the state does not recognize/authorize/perform marriages, what will be considered the "power to bind a marriage on earth"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funky: I think we are in agreement on the authority issue – simply that man has the ability to bind on earth and that God chooses to recognize that binding because it furthers his purpose (and with his recognition comes the removal of the sin of fornication). I get that… mostly.

At first Traveler’s comment seemed contradictory when he said: “Civil marriages are allowed by G-d but only until a person dies. What G-d recognizes is eternal.” I think the point he was trying to make, however, was with the word choice and difference between “allowed” and “recognizes.” I’m I right? God may allow something to be temporal, but only recognizes that which is eternal? So you are saying that God doesn’t recognize civil marriages at all… he just allows them?

RanMan: “…they have the authority to marry for the duration of mortality.” First of all, who is ‘they?’ Second, from whence does this authority come? And third, WHY are they given this authority when there is a higher law required for exaltation?

Ok, now to take this to a more personal level (after 10 pages I think I can do this). If man is given the authority to bind on earth with no stipulations, why can’t that same authority be used to bind two men and two women? Would that be considered “unrighteous dominion?” Would the man performing the binding be held accountable? Would that binding still have the ability to remove the sin of fornication?

We have already discussed how certain relationships that do have a marriage certificate could still be called out for fornication during judgment. Is this the same place church doctrine would put homosexuals who were married if God doesn’t approve of such a relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the man performing the binding be held accountable? Would that binding still have the ability to remove the sin of fornication?

We have already discussed how certain relationships that do have a marriage certificate could still be called out for fornication during judgment. Is this the same place church doctrine would put homosexuals who were married if God doesn’t approve of such a relationship?

interesting to consider the accountability level of the person performing the wedding. never thought about that one. i've heard it said that pilate was never more guilty than when he "washed his hands" of jesus' crucifixion. he didn't do it personally but he knew it was wrong, he was in a position to be able to stop it and allowed it to go forward.

i asked my stake pres about the second question. if gay marriage is legal is a gay couple breaking the law of chastity which is clearly defined as legally and lawfully wedded? he said that it would not change the application of the law of chastity. some things are not permitted by the law of chastity (porn, bestiality, rape, homosexual relations, etc*). after that, what's left is only permissible if legally married.

* by no means a complete list and not suggesting that these things are equal in nature or severity. just a few of the things that came to my mind that are not permitted by the church when it comes to sexual behaviors even within marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gwen: Am I wrong in assuming the same authority will still be used in either case? When authority is given to man simply based on him/her having dominion over the earth, regardless of worthiness (after all, a justice of the peace doesn't have to go through any worthiness requirements to perform a civil marriage), it makes sense that there would be abuses of that power - whether on purpose or not - by using it against God's particular will.

I was taught as a missionary that if a missionary/person is unworthy and performs a baptism, blessing, whatever, that God will still recognize that action, but will hold the missionary/person responsible for using his authority unjustly.

Obviously we can't force God to recognize same-sex marriages, but I'm wondering the opinion of people here regarding the validity of that binding in light of such knowledge (or in the lack of such knowledge).

You all rock. Thank you for hashing this out with me. It’s been an issue that’s bothered me for quite some time, and I don't think I've ever felt as comfortable with it as I do now. I'm still not sure I could successfully argue a case for the sanctity of civil marriage, but I feel I'm having the majority of my questions answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gwen: Am I wrong in assuming the same authority will still be used in either case? When authority is given to man simply based on him/her having dominion over the earth, regardless of worthiness (after all, a justice of the peace doesn't have to go through any worthiness requirements to perform a civil marriage), it makes sense that there would be abuses of that power - whether on purpose or not - by using it against God's particular will.

I was taught as a missionary that if a missionary/person is unworthy and performs a baptism, blessing, whatever, that God will still recognize that action, but will hold the missionary/person responsible for using his authority unjustly.

Obviously we can't force God to recognize same-sex marriages, but I'm wondering the opinion of people here regarding the validity of that binding in light of such knowledge (or in the lack of such knowledge).

You all rock. Thank you for hashing this out with me. It’s been an issue that’s bothered me for quite some time, and I don't think I've ever felt as comfortable with it as I do now. I'm still not sure I could successfully argue a case for the sanctity of civil marriage, but I feel I'm having the majority of my questions answered.

I can see where your coming from. There is, however an important element. God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a women right? He has already put into operation ordinances that use His Priesthood. Any ordiance that does not follow in the appropriate way would be invalid. For instance baptism, if one is not immersed it must be redone, no matter the authority.

So when a priesthood holder exercises his authority and is not worthy, as you were saying blessings are still bestowed, however he still has to perform the ordinances in the correct manner for it to be binding on earth and on heaven.

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