The Marriage Ordinance

[Gwen]

when a person performs an ordinance or blessing unworthily it is still honored due to the faith of the person receiving the ordinance. we are not punished for adam's sin. if we seek a blessing that is a righteous thing. we can not control if the person fails to decline due to unworthiness.

i don't think god would recognize the same-sex marriage as a marriage. aside from the sexual sin i think god will also be judging them on the relationship (which i think he does even if you aren't married). how did they treat each other, was there love, respect, charity, etc. i believe we are as blessed for the good we do as much as we have the consequences of the wrong. when all is said and done i think there are many same-sex relationships that will be far better off than many marriages.

setting god's recognition of it aside, for me i would see the legal validity (doesn't matter what it is called marriage vs. civil union) as equal to my own. when it comes to the law they should have the same rights and privileges as i would.

[Seminarysnoozer]

i don't think god would recognize the same-sex marriage as a marriage. aside from the sexual sin i think god will also be judging them on the relationship (which i think he does even if you aren't married). how did they treat each other, was there love, respect, charity, etc. i believe we are as blessed for the good we do as much as we have the consequences of the wrong. when all is said and done i think there are many same-sex relationships that will be far better off than many marriages.

setting god's recognition of it aside, for me i would see the legal validity (doesn't matter what it is called marriage vs. civil union) as equal to my own. when it comes to the law they should have the same rights and privileges as i would.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "recognize". Like when he 'recognizes' someone sign a rental agreement on an apartment? God is not involved in those marriages. God tells us to obey the laws of the land but that is as far as that goes. God is not part of the contract as He is when it is done with proper authority.

If you think it is just based on the "bless(ings) for the good we do as much as we have the consequences of the wrong" then you are not taking into consideration the additional effect a covenant has. I've seen several comments on this already in this thread by others than myself that seem to be passed over. It's hard to understand, but having a Priesthood authority established covenant is MUCH different from any other related ceremony. .... unless one doesn't believe in covenants with God. LDS describe themselves as covenant people. That is a vital part of our religion. We all should understand clearly the difference between a covenant versus obeying a commandment. And the need for covenants to become like our Heavenly Father. Plainly stated, God does not recognize civil marriage as a covenant with Him. ... and so it means as much to Him as would a person keeping any other legal agreement, like a rental agreement, as an example, it doesn't involve Him, there is no promise from God there.

[GaySaint]

Seminary: While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. A civil marriage MUST mean more to God than a simple legal contract, because a legal civil marriage somehow removes the sin associated with the relationship (IE, the couple is no longer breaking the law of chastity by having physical relations). Somehow, there is a provision in the case of civil marriage where the Lord allows these relations soley because of earthly authority.

I can't think of any other legal contract that results in something sinful becoming non-sinful. Can you?

[Guest]

Again, it depends on what you mean by "recognize". Like when he 'recognizes' someone sign a rental agreement on an apartment? God is not involved in those marriages. God tells us to obey the laws of the land but that is as far as that goes. God is not part of the contract as He is when it is done with proper authority.

If you think it is just based on the "bless(ings) for the good we do as much as we have the consequences of the wrong" then you are not taking into consideration the additional effect a covenant has. I've seen several comments on this already in this thread by others than myself that seem to be passed over. It's hard to understand, but having a Priesthood authority established covenant is MUCH different from any other related ceremony. .... unless one doesn't believe in covenants with God. LDS describe themselves as covenant people. That is a vital part of our religion. We all should understand clearly the difference between a covenant versus obeying a commandment. And the need for covenants to become like our Heavenly Father. Plainly stated, God does not recognize civil marriage as a covenant with Him. ... and so it means as much to Him as would a person keeping any other legal agreement, like a rental agreement, as an example, it doesn't involve Him, there is no promise from God there.

This confuses me. IF a civil marriage is enough to fulfill the law of chastity then why does it not involve God? It has to be for it to be able to do that.

Yes, we are a covenant people. When I walked into the courthouse to marry my husband I made a covenant with God that I will love/honor/obey/etc. my husband. Yes, it didn't have the proper authority (I was Catholic, my husband inactive LDS) and the justice of the peace was non-denominational and didn't even mention God in the ceremony, but it must have been enough at the time because the LDS church thought I qualified for baptism.

[Gwen]

first let me clarify this statement "i don't think god would recognize the same-sex marriage as a marriage" i was using marriage in the way saint was that by being married it removes the sin of fornication. i think he does recognize the relationship and the promises 2 ppl make to each other and will be judged based on their keeping those promises. no those promises aren't with god but they are commitments and i think god does take such things seriously. which is part of why civil marriages are important though not covenant.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "recognize". Like when he 'recognizes' someone sign a rental agreement on an apartment? God is not involved in those marriages. God tells us to obey the laws of the land but that is as far as that goes. God is not part of the contract as He is when it is done with proper authority.

If you think it is just based on the "bless(ings) for the good we do as much as we have the consequences of the wrong" then you are not taking into consideration the additional effect a covenant has. I've seen several comments on this already in this thread by others than myself that seem to be passed over. It's hard to understand, but having a Priesthood authority established covenant is MUCH different from any other related ceremony. .... unless one doesn't believe in covenants with God. LDS describe themselves as covenant people. That is a vital part of our religion. We all should understand clearly the difference between a covenant versus obeying a commandment. And the need for covenants to become like our Heavenly Father. Plainly stated, God does not recognize civil marriage as a covenant with Him. ... and so it means as much to Him as would a person keeping any other legal agreement, like a rental agreement, as an example, it doesn't involve Him, there is no promise from God there.

there is a promise from god in the extent that there are promises of blessing for keeping commandments. when you enter an agreement it is expected that you will keep that agreement and treat the ppl involved properly according to that agreement.

when you enter a covenant with god you increase the blessing potential but you also increase the expectations to receive those blessings. when that's not kept you are also subject to a greater condemnation. that is why we excommunicate ppl from the church. in a way to protect them, you remove that obligation of the covenant.

because of that i think in the end there will be ppl that were married in the temple that will be in far worse situations for their salvation than some co-habitation relationships.

[Just_A_Guy]

I can't think of any other legal contract that results in something sinful becoming non-sinful. Can you?

In the eyes of God - no. And I would include civil marriage in that list of contracts, though I understand I'm the minority view here.

But in the eyes of much of the world - sure. Predatory financial practices (be they sub-prime credit card or mortgages, universal/whole life insurance), for example - contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; but once the agreement has been signed an awful lot of us will say "tough luck, borrower--a contract is a contract" without worrying over whether the lender's actions were morally right.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This confuses me. IF a civil marriage is enough to fulfill the law of chastity then why does it not involve God? It has to be for it to be able to do that.

Yes, we are a covenant people. When I walked into the courthouse to marry my husband I made a covenant with God that I will love/honor/obey/etc. my husband. Yes, it didn't have the proper authority (I was Catholic, my husband inactive LDS) and the justice of the peace was non-denominational and didn't even mention God in the ceremony, but it must have been enough at the time because the LDS church thought I qualified for baptism.

If it wasn't done with the right authority than it really wasn't a covenant with God (as in a religious context defined by the bible dictionary). You are picking apart the word 'involve' and taking it out of context. I was using it in reference to what we commonly call a covenant in the LDS faith. Sure, He is involved in every aspect of our lives if you want to be silly about it, He watches our every move, our every thought.

The law of chastity is a separate set of commandments which falls under the rule that if you do what God says than He will reward you accordingly. The civil marriage in the courthouse is between those two people and God was not bound to anything more than was already bound by the law of chastity. In our religion there is clearly something different between commandments and covenants. I'm not sure if you understand those differences.

I'm not sure if you think the benefit of temple marriage is that it has the potential to be an eternal marriage and that is it. I am trying to say (which I guess is not coming across for some reason) that the benefits of a God bound marriage covenant through Priesthood power provides more earthly blessings and direct support than any other form of marriage. If that is the case, where does that come from? It is part of the covenant, that is not part of any other covenant. The benefit is not just that it is recognized beyond this life. The reason to make any covenant through Priesthood power is to have God bound as a partner in fulfilling the demands of the contract, through additional sustaining power and inspiration during this life that would not be there without it.

The same can be said about baptism done under proper authority, the sustaining benefits are different here in this life as well as something recorded in heaven.

[Seminarysnoozer]

when you enter a covenant with god you increase the blessing potential but you also increase the expectations to receive those blessings. when that's not kept you are also subject to a greater condemnation. that is why we excommunicate ppl from the church. in a way to protect them, you remove that obligation of the covenant.

.

I agree with that but that is not all. You left out that the priesthood authority driven covenant allows the participants special privileges and sustaining support that is not available to those that don't make that covenant. The 'upside' of covenants is not just the potential for future blessings, they are also here and now. And, therefore, makes temple marriage different here, not only for the couple but also for the children that come into it.

[pam]

I guess I must be out of the loop. Even living in Utah for 15 years I've never heard any LDS say they they wouldn't go to a wedding or a baptism for someone who was not LDS.

[RanMan]

I guess I must be out of the loop. Even living in Utah for 15 years I've never heard any LDS say they they wouldn't go to a wedding or a baptism for someone who was not LDS.

I must be out of the loop too, because I haven't heard that either.

:)

[zippy_do46]

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.

Maybe a sandwich , but however you put it together and what ever you put in the sandwich ...unless it has peanut butter and jelly ...it is not a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

When I became a member of this Church I made several changes in my life. I accepted the Gospel as being true. I accepted that there was a living prophet leading this Church. This prophet speaks of those things our Heavenly Father wants us to know. There has been several prophets that have define and taught us what marriage is. If in the future, this prophet or other future prophets defines marriage as something else then I know what he says and teaches is from Heavenly Father.

Edited August 13, 2010 by zippy_do46

[RanMan]

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?

Sorry, I had missed your response to me until just now.

I must have missed the portion of the discussion where it was determined that man can be given the authority to bind on Earth with no stipulations. I would need to know more about that stance before I agree or disagree.

Outside the temple, there exists only the authority to marry for the length of mortality. The authority comes from man made institutions, but is approved of by God as it pertains to the maintaining of virtue. If I'm not mistaken there is a quote about the bed not being defiled in a marriage.

I see some mixing of authority coming from man and authority coming from God in this thread and that seems inaccurate and flawed for the presentation of a valid argument.

Regardless, God has placed stipulations on the marriages which are performed by those whom He has given authority, and I would say that man made institutions have stipulations as to marriages which they have authority to perform. In fact, I think this is the crux of the matter. Marriage is listed as a union between a man and a woman. It is recently that attempts have been made to change the traditional understanding of marriage to include same-gender unions. So I guess I disagree; the traditional definition of marriage stipulates a union between a man and a woman. Stipulations do exist. I'm sure that this is not the only one.

And that makes your second question somewhat moot - the reason why the authority to bind two men or two women together is being opposed is because the original stipluation for marriage be that it is a union of a man and a woman. Man made institutions giving the authority to perform this sort of marriage goes against the original purpose and use of this institution. Same gender marriage exceeds the authority given to bind in mortality.

I think the "unrighteous dominion" question is back to mixing the mad made authority with the God give authority on this issue. Why not stick to one or the other rather than confusing the two.

However, would the person performing a same gender marriage be held accountable for some sort of sinful action? I think so. If the person is voluntarily performing this function then they are enabling sinful behavior.

And the performance of a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple does not remove the sinful nature of the union. First of all, because marriage wasn't intended to be applied to same sex couples; and secondly, the Bible clearly points out the sinful nature of same sex fornication. The Bible refers to it as an abomination and the performance of a marriage, authorized by a man made institution, does not change God's stance on the matter.

I don't believe that there is sin in "fornication" if that is the term you are using for sex. there is only sin when this is used outside its proper place - which is within the bounds of marriage. Sex is a beautiful thing. There is nothing wrong with it. Only with the misuse of it.

As to your last paragraph - Yes. Same sex marriages / unions will be called out, as you put it, during judgment. My understanding of the topic is that God does not approve of same sex unions and a ceremony performed with authority given by a man made institution will not change this at all.

Hopefully I was clear in my responses. If not, feel free to ask for further explanation.

:)

[Hemidakota]

Exactly...well stated.

To repeat what the Lord stated, “…what is bound on earth is also bound in the Heaven…(Meaning – the Celestial Kingdom)” by appropriate authority of GOD. We need to look beyond this earth in order to set our mortal goals to match what is already known. There are no marriages vows or binding contracts below any state or glory beyond the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. Nor will there be any allowance made for any marriage below the highest state of the Celestial Kingdom. Any man made contract will be made 'void' upon death. Anyone agreeing to live in any glorious state, will have to apply themselves to that state and its given laws. (See D&C 76 & 88) If not, they will not be allowed to enter therein. Neither will GOD or the Savior agree with any same gender marriages’ nor other soon-to-be spinoffs reform type of marriages in this mortal life since it violates the principle of marriage, which is an eternal principle and not man made. Unless it is perform in the same method that was given in the Garden between Adam and Eve, anything outside of this ritual after death will be made void.

We can arguer all we want but remembering who worlds and church this belongs too, it is up to the Savior to make necessary changes to this principle. Noting, this principle is base on an eternal principle, the Lord is bound already to follow the Celestial Laws through covenants He had made before the FATHER. I don’t ever expect the Savior to change it now or ever; even allowing it in the church. What He does allow, is civil marriages between man and woman that is about it.

What we can do, is to correct this notion and find an answer to the cause and move forward in doing the right. If not, we choose our path and place ourselves outside of being an eternal family.

See link for further explanation in OTHER NOTES what GOD allows with institutional laws of the land:

http://www.lds.net/forums/scripture-study-forum/34065-august-17-1835-d-c-134-received.html

[jayanna]

I think that the reason the Lord allows earthly marriage between and man and a woman to be within the bounds of the law of chastity is purely mercy.

Like the law of Tithing for example. In the Celestial kingdom we will be expected to share all things...the law of consecration, He has asked us to try this law on occasion and we failed...while we are here on earh, because of our weakness, He allows us to get away with giving only 10% to practice for the greater law later.

While 5%, or maybe what spending cash you have on you at the time is not enough to be 'tithing' to those who take on His name, homosexual marriage, 'living together' indefinitely is also not enough. Mercy is only applied to a certain extent. For some reason He has given the limits to this mercy. You'll have to ask Him why.

Living up to even the minimal requirements for the celestial kingdom might seem really hard, but my life was a lot harder until I started walking the walk back to my Heavenly Father.

[carlimac]

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?

Jumping on this way late. I've read some of the responses but not all so I apologize if someone else has answered this in the same way I am going to. I'm only addressing the "celebration" part.

For me it's very simple. If the two people are LDS and marrying outside the temple, I will attend and celebrate their union. But at the same time I will feel sad that they aren't worthy to receive all the blessings the Lord wishes for them. Definitely a subdued celebration, in my heart and mind anyway.

If one person is LDS and marrying someone of a different religion in their church, that would add another measure of sadness for me, especially since their children will likely face confusion and the LDS member will face lonliness. I would attend but wouldn't feel very celebratory.

If someone is not LDS and is baptizing their child, or are getting baptized or married in their own church I'd attend if invited and celebrate with them and curiously watch the whole proceedings. I've been to several Catholic and one Jewish wedding. Very interesting culturally but I can't say I felt much spiritually. The parties were fun though and great food! My daughter went to a friends bat mitzvah- same experience for her. Educational and fun but not spiritually uplifting.

If an LDS friend is getting baptized into another church, I would not celebrate and probably wouldn't attend unless it were a very close relative.

Lastly, if a friend or family member were marrying someone of their same sex, I most definitely wouldn't celebrate and possibly would not even attend. I believe it's a farse and blasphemy before Heavenly Father. I honestly don't know if I could even attend my own child's gay wedding. I would NOT pay for it that's for sure!! (Thankfully so far none of them have chosen that path.) But I would certainly allow them to come to family events with their partner and would still love them. But there would be no outward or inward celebration from me at all. Selfish? Perhaps but there are lines I just can't cross.

Edited August 19, 2010 by carlimac

[GaySaint]

Wrong thread... two windows open! Oops :)

[Hemidakota]

If Adam and Eve had almost 60 children, 90-percent of them failed...could Adam and Eve still celebrate? No! Sad day...