Spiritual Implications of Civil Marriage Before Sealing


ryanh
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have heard a number of opposing opinions, and hope to hear many more from this site. I have searched the archives, and did find a couple threads that tangentially touched upon the topic of choosing civil marriage before temple sealing, but not sufficiently to address what I am looking for.

I suppose that like so many things in the Gospel, the exact particulars of what is expected of a person in relation to choosing the route of marriage is custom tailored by the Lord to their situation. Still, like many ordinances, I would also expect some absolutes to be applicable also.

I can see a few reasons for choosing to first marry civilly rather than within the temple in a sealing ordinance.

1 - Country of residence does not recognize a temple sealing as a legitimate marriage, and requires a civil marriage first. The HoI and common sense covers this pretty clearly. No spiritual implications so long as the couple immediately makes their way to the temple.

2 - Sealing ordinance is not of importance to one or both partners. I think this is probably the most cut and dried situation (other than #1) for understanding spiritual implications. President Kimball's 1973 BYU Fireside - Marriage is Honorable - pretty well addresses this. King Benjamin's address (now is the time to perform the labors of this life) also provides some basis for evaluating the implications.

3 - Non-member family considerations. I know there are some that have chosen to be married civilly in order for non-member family to be able to participate. Some of the past threads on .net touch upon this. It seems that there would be at least some level of spiritual implications related to this decision as the couple, while following noble desires, at least in some small part is putting worldly decisions ahead of spiritual choices with eternal implications.

4 - Fear of / escape from temptation. This is something I have been facing myself. For those that have never been in the situation of considering remarriage - let me just say you likely have no clue how hard it is. The temptations the first time around, when young and still a virgin, absolutely pale in comparison to the temptations of two previously married individuals attempting to court enough to make the decision, and once the decision is made, then wait for a period while paperwork is being processed. I've come to realize this is not an uncommon reason for people to consider a civil marriage prior to seeking a sealing ordinance a year later - to avoid very serious transgression.

5 - Transgression. The couple has become unworthy to enter the temple, and may be unworthy to do so for at least a year. They and their Bishop(s) know that once a proverbial pandora's box has been opened, it is incredibly difficult to close it for an extended period of time.

For reasons 3-5 where the implications are not so clear, what are your thoughts on the spiritual implications? Does the choice to enter into a civil union first have negative spiritual repercussions? Or do you think it is just as valid and honorable as marrying in the temple first? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first reaction to 3 and 4 is not a positive one – that they do indeed have negative spiritual repercussions. However, that is strongly tempered with a qualifier that each situation is unique.

I’m not sure that the couple would ever come to the temple a year later to perform the sealing, and find themselves wholly in the same position they would have been had they gone to the temple first. I feel that, while much lesser than sexual transgression, there is some loss, some lack of blessings, for having one’s sights set upon the sun, but only reaching the moon.

This thought is fleshed out to a greater degree for me when, as President Kimball tells a story in Marriage is Honorable of a couple that is killed in a car crash after their civil marriage, but prior to the time they could be sealed a year later. What is their state, having known the importance of the sealing ordinance, having chosen to not make it their priority, and then died and passed into the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed?

In the Marriage is Honorable talk, President Kimball also makes some pretty plain statements that seem to indicate choosing marriage outside of the temple, when the importance of sealing ordinances are know, is a mockery of the Lord. “Remember, ‘for this is a day of warning,’ the scripture says, ‘and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days’ (D&C 63:58). Can you think of any worse mockery than a civil marriage, than no marriage at all? ‘Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ’ (D&C 63:60). Marriage should be solemnized in the holy temple, by an appointed leader ordained by the prophet who holds the keys. . . . And so we wonder why, with all these blessings and promises, men will fail to marry and fail to marry right, and thus waste their lives in a frozen wilderness. Why will any person ever give a single thought to a marriage out of the temple and jeopardize those glories that are available?”

I can’t say I have any better insight on situation #5 where there was transgression preventing the couple from going to the temple. Setting aside the transgression and the necessary repentance for that, is marriage civilly as a stepping stone really acceptable before the Lord? Or, generally speaking, would he rather have us back out, repent and change our ways, and find someone with whom we can do it “right”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking there's a really big reason that is sort of mentioned in your list but never directly addressed.

- Legal, covenented marital relations rocks. Out-of-wedlock relations rocks less, because of the various negative consequences that often accompany it.

If you're a ways away from a TR, go get hitched. The Bishop is most likely ok with it, we figure God is ok with it, so what's the problem? If the gospel really is line upon line, precept upon precept, climbing the ladder one rung at a time, then go ahead and get married so you're not living in sin anymore. By definition, that is what 'moving in the right direction' looks like, right?

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good advice (even if a bit misdirected). I’ve heard from many that hold the same opinion as it relates to those in categories 3-5.

However, I want to understand the spiritual implications, not seek out advice.

If the Gospel really is: "line upon line, precept upon precept, climbing the ladder one rung at a time", then why wouldn't there be an expectation to do a bit of climbing to do something right in the first place? Would you suggest a person not fully repent before being baptized? (i.e. not climbing the necessary rungs first) Or would you suggest an investigator just go ahead and give it a try to live the Gospel, but not worry about being baptized until a year from deciding they wanted to be baptized?

For myself, I don't accept "figure[ing] God is ok with it" as acceptable rationalization for one of the most important decisions a person will make in their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, ryan, we do know that God is okay with civil marriage. The issue I have with how we talk about marriage and sealing in the church is that we tend to use the words marriage and sealing almost interchangeably, but we simultaneously insist that sealing is better than marriage.

Another oddity that strikes me is illustrated below, (taken from Elder Scott's CES talk from May of 2010)

Elder Scott: I know you are going to find that a blessing in your life as you continue your plans for the future. I would like to ask you some questions, if I may. Rebecca, has your sealing to Ben brought all the happiness you dreamed that it would?

Rebecca: It’s brought all that happiness and more, and the reason why is because, now that we’re sealed, we can do everything together. That was something I didn’t fully comprehend before we were sealed. Being able to do everything together and go through everything together has been such a blessing. And just knowing that no matter what happens we’ll be together forever is a wonderful blessing.

When we talk about sealing, about the only thing we use to distinguish it from marriage is that "it lasts forever." When our language concerning sealing is so limited, it's no wonder that we have a hard time seeing any benefit to waiting to be sealed instead of married first.

Overall, I think our language is inadequate, and that may be contributing to the problem you bring up.

My theory--and this is my theory alone--is that sealing is to marriage what the gift of the Holy Ghost is to baptism. Consider that you don't have to be baptized and confirmed to be a good person, or to feel good about keeping God's commandments. We can be conditioned to do all of that without the gift of the Holy Ghost. What we are promised with the gift of the Holy Ghost is constant companionship (so long as we remain worthy). We are promised that we'll have an extra guide present that is tuned in to eternal ramifications, not just temporal. In theory, that means we have more and better input into our decision making process than is available without the gift.

Sealing, in my opinion, works the same way. That by keeping the covenants associated with our sealings, we are promised more and better information pertaining to the management of the corresponding responsibilities to spouse and family. It isn't that married people can't do what sealed people can do, but that the Lord is offering a little extra help to those who are sealed.

I'm sure there's some critical flaw in that line of reasoning, but it's a start anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem that many have is not understanding covenants. With covenants come blessings. But many think that if they do not covenant that they are cursed. Well if not receiving blessing is being cursed then maybe but the point is that all blessings from G-d are predicated on obedience.

If someone is not married for eternity there are lost blessings because of it - not curses. If a person repents and enters into a covenant with G-d then they will always be blessed but perhaps not with all the blessings that they would have received had they remained forever faithful. This little understanding can be found in the parable of the prodigal son.

So here is the point. Be obedient and receive blessings. If you have not always been obedient - then repent and receive blessings. The important thing is to make up one’s mind (repentance) and be obedient - regardless of your past or present.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we do know that God is okay with civil marriage

And how, precisely, do you come to that conclusion? Thinking through the likely lines of reason and sources of info (including the HoI) I could likely use the same process to come to a conclusion that divorce is "okay" with God. Sure, in some instances, divorce is "okay", acceptable, even necessary (Oaks – Divorce) but that doesn't mean it is without repercussions, nor something that He detests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how, precisely, do you come to that conclusion? Thinking through the likely lines of reason and sources of info (including the HoI) I could likely use the same process to come to a conclusion that divorce is "okay" with God. Sure, in some instances, divorce is "okay", acceptable, even necessary (Oaks – Divorce) but that doesn't mean it is without repercussions, nor something that He detests.

My justification would be sexual relations are to be had between men and women who are legally and lawfully married.

Admittedly, I understand that stipulation could be changed under a mormon theocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

3 - Non-member family considerations. I know there are some that have chosen to be married civilly in order for non-member family to be able to participate. Some of the past threads on .net touch upon this. It seems that there would be at least some level of spiritual implications related to this decision as the couple, while following noble desires, at least in some small part is putting worldly decisions ahead of spiritual choices with eternal implications.

Definite spiritual consequences can come from this. You can stop the transmission of the gospel to immediate family members who lack testimony and see their exclusion from the temple as an affront. So, the implications of a civil wedding for non-members who don't understand or have faith in the LDS gospel can have many negative, spiritual ramifications.

It can cause spiritual suffering on the part of the members who go ahead with the temple marriage anyway. Both items above -- alienation/shutting off conversion to extended family happened on both sides of our families (my wife and I). Some have even experienced family disownership or disinterest as a result. If I could do it over again, I'd get married civilly first.

4 - Fear of / escape from temptation. This is something I have been facing myself. For those that have never been in the situation of considering remarriage - let me just say you likely have no clue how hard it is. The temptations the first time around, when young and still a virgin, absolutely pale in comparison to the temptations of two previously married individuals attempting to court enough to make the decision, and once the decision is made, then wait for a period while paperwork is being processed. I've come to realize this is not an uncommon reason for people to consider a civil marriage prior to seeking a sealing ordinance a year later - to avoid very serious transgression.

In the end, it will not matter if you did the civil or temple wedding first. What will matter is what you became in the process. If getting married civilly first keeps you from committing a moral transgression you will regret for the rest of your life, AND you eventually get married in the temple, the order of these ordinances will mean absolutely nothing in the eternities.

Unfortunately, in my experience, I've seen undue commitment to the "temple wedding first and only" policy lead to active members being judgmental to others who choose civil weddings first. It has led to a lack of compassion, being a judge not a light, and hurting the sense of community people feel with our religion. It can therefore give rise to hardheartedness and judgmentality on the part of its proponents.

The fact that the Church relaxes this requirement in countries where a Civil marriage must be performed first, to me, shows egocentricity toward our own ordinances that I would like to see changed. It also shows that in the long run, it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. If the "temple marriage first and only" concept was as important as current policy makes it out to be, we would require brides and grooms to travel to other countries to have their marriage performed there, when their home country forbids it.

Do you think [marrying civilly] is just as valid and honorable as marrying in the temple first? Why?

Yes I do -- I think it's very honorable since we are commanded to honour our father's and mothers. It's honorable because it recognizes that your relationship with Church people is ever-changing and temporary, but your relationship with your immediate family, whether they are members or not, is far more permanent in this life -and they deserve the honor and respect. Looking back, I was an arrogant young man when I announced I was going to get married in the temple and my family wasn't allowed to come. My family has been the most faithful and supportive, even beyond the Church throughout my entire life in all other respects, and they deserved far more respect than I showed them at the time.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something my fiance and family and I are kicking around. The way I see it, the object and end result is to be sealed and in the long run I don't see how a bride and groom who first marry in the temple are that different from a couple who after years of marriage get sealed. In the end, both couples are sealed and covenants are made.

However, my co-worker said something very interesting the other day which I would like to see some opinions on: Getting married in the temple, if the opportunity exists, would set a certain spirit to the marriage.

If someone is not married for eternity there are lost blessings because of it - not curses. If a person repents and enters into a covenant with G-d then they will always be blessed but perhaps not with all the blessings that they would have received had they remained forever faithful. This little understanding can be found in the parable of the prodigal son.

Now are we talking about marrying in the temple or being sealed? Certainly blessings come with sealings, but I don't think any are lost if a couple is married civily first.

I see benefits to both:

Civil Wedding: Gets a couple married, does that basic civil job. Allows non-member/non-TR-holding friends/family to be in attendance, which I believe is a spiritual thing in itself. Allows a couple to be together, married, which I certainly believe God approves of.

Temple wedding: Gets a couple sealed pretty much right away. Sets a good example. Gets it "out of the way", so to speak (I've a friend and his wife who have been aiming for the temple for years and have said it would have been easier if they had just waited to get married in the temple first.)

Really, I think the important part is the sealing ordinances.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically you must be legally married "first" to be sealed. (NOW) In the US this occurs at the same time but as pointed out by mormonmusic you must be legally wed first, in these other countries that don't accept a sealing as legal before being sealed.

So as it stand right now

You can be married to someone you're not sealed to

But you cannot be sealed to someone you're not married to*

*death and divorce complicate this. What i mean is 2 people with no intent of being legally wed cannot get sealed, and i believe (perhaps someone can shed some light on this) while you can do a sealing for your deceased parents, even if they where divorced, you can't seal your deceased great aunt Edna to her deceased live in boyfriend , even if they were together for life because they were not legally married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically you must be legally married "first" to be sealed. (NOW) In the US this occurs at the same time but as pointed out by mormonmusic you must be legally wed first, in these other countries that don't accept a sealing as legal before being sealed.

So as it stand right now

You can be married to someone you're not sealed to

But you cannot be sealed to someone you're not married to*

*death and divorce complicate this. What i mean is 2 people with no intent of being legally wed cannot get sealed, and i believe (perhaps someone can shed some light on this) while you can do a sealing for your deceased parents, even if they where divorced, you can't seal your deceased great aunt Edna to her deceased live in boyfriend , even if they were together for life because they were not legally married.

I think that puts the marital status in a decent spiritual position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry ryanh - I was using the royal 'you' - not directing advice anywhere specific. I have no clue as to your specific situation. :)

If the Gospel really is: "line upon line, precept upon precept, climbing the ladder one rung at a time", then why wouldn't there be an expectation to do a bit of climbing to do something right in the first place?

Isn't getting married, doing exactly that? Moving from a state of living in sin, to a covenentally and legally valid marriage? It seems to me that when it comes to existing stable relationships, especially in cases that have already produced children, moving away from sinning and into a sinless relationship is a fine way of moving up the ladder and closer towards a life that God would have us live.

Would you suggest a person not fully repent before being baptized? (i.e. not climbing the necessary rungs first)

Interesting question. Scripture is pretty clear that repentence comes before baptism. Maybe I'm mishearing you, but are you suggesting that in order to repent from a shack-up situation, folks in committed relationships would need to break up or end their relationship or move out? What if there are kids involved?

Or would you suggest an investigator just go ahead and give it a try to live the Gospel, but not worry about being baptized until a year from deciding they wanted to be baptized?

Well, maybe my choice of terms 'just go ahead' makes me appear more flippant about things than I really am. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of deciding who to espouse and how to live with them - heaven knows I struggled mightilly with that one myself a dozen years ago. I'm saying that if you're looking for a way to increase your spirituality, and you are in a committed relationship where you're currently shacking up and living in sin, making your committed relationship valid in God's eyes is a good way to stop sinning and do good. (Again - general 'you' here)

All that said, I myself took about a year of living the gospel before becoming convinced that getting baptized was the right thing to do. Yeah, if someone is unsure about the truth claims of the church or the BoM, living the life of a baptized member is one good step (along with study, fasting, prayer) to becoming converted, repenting, and choosing baptism.

For myself, I don't accept "figure[ing] God is ok with it" as acceptable rationalization for one of the most important decisions a person will make in their life.

Again, my choice of words might make me appear flippant. But surely - figuring out where God stands on various choices - even life's most important decisions - is a good thing, right?

LM

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM - I don't disagree at all that in situation #5 - where a couple are shacking up, or especially if there are children already, marriage civilly is a great step, and progress.

But, what about situations #3 and #4? What are your thoughts/feelings about whether those choices are progression, stagnation, or regression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do -- I think it's very honorable since we are commanded to honour our father's and mothers. It's honorable because it recognizes that your relationship with Church people is ever-changing and temporary, but your relationship with your immediate family, whether they are members or not, is far more permanent in this life -and they deserve the honor and respect. Looking back, I was an arrogant young man when I announced I was going to get married in the temple and my family wasn't allowed to come. My family has been the most faithful and supportive, even beyond the Church throughout my entire life in all other respects, and they deserved far more respect than I showed them at the time.

I appreciate your thought and input. I did expect this post, as I recall our discussions on this very topic before. It will be interesting to "replay" this episode of life with the full understandings of the eternities to be able to comprehend all of the positives and negatives that stemmed from your decision.

You often reason out very well the various facets of an issue. What is your take on #4? Where it is a choice that is not so clear, doesn't have the flavoring of family implications, and doesn't have the implications of transgressions committed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic
Hidden

I think I answered number 4 above. I say that fear of transgression is another good reason to get married civilly first. This sounds strange, but I wouldn't let the temple interfere with my living the law of chastity!

For this one, you'll have to make a judgment about the risk of transgression happening, and then decide accordingly. For most people, it's a huge risk.

I heard of one couple who actually held their civil wedding after doing a session at the temple. This was to dispel any rumors they were not worthy to be married there. Someone even said they held the civil wedding in a room in the temple, which sounded incredulous to me given all the hooplah about not wanting to besmirch the importance of a temple wedding. So I wonder if it's lore.

Link to comment

A couple can be married for time only in the temple. A couple of my good friends did that.

Good to hear this. I'm still being a brat about the Ogden temple. It would be nice to still be married there before the remodeling even if we don't get the clearance in time and go with civil ceremony.

I think I answered number 4 above. I say that fear of transgression is another good reason to get married civilly first. This sounds strange, but I wouldn't let the temple interfere with my living the law of chastity!

Better to pick a civil ceremony than to have to have a civil ceremony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that #3, non-member family considerations, is most interesting for me. If I convert, and become engaged to someone LDS, I know that my non-member parents and siblings would take it VERY hard if I only had a temple wedding that they could not be present at. Having a ring ceremony after wouldn't be the same, and I know how upset they would be, since family is so important to them, and they missed out on such an important part of family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that #3, non-member family considerations, is most interesting for me. If I convert, and become engaged to someone LDS, I know that my non-member parents and siblings would take it VERY hard if I only had a temple wedding that they could not be present at. Having a ring ceremony after wouldn't be the same, and I know how upset they would be, since family is so important to them, and they missed out on such an important part of family.

If everything goes according to plan, I will be the first grandchild my grandmother will see married in the temple (she finished her conversion and went through the temple last month). To date, she has only seen one get married. She would have seen two, but my cousin was Wiccan and snuck off into the woods secretly her husband and only had a ring ceremony three days later...:huh:

It is very special to be married in front of your family. I personally wish we would forget all the legal stuff about marriage and just make it about declaring your love in front of family, community, and God.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic
Hidden

It will be interesting to "replay" this episode of life with the full understandings of the eternities to be able to comprehend all of the positives and negatives that stemmed from your decision.

The fact that there is no full understanding of the implications of a civil wedding before a temple one, or regretting that one didn't involve one's family, and apologizing for it later tells me there is little or no accountability.....we are judged according to our knowledge, and in this case, the knowledge is not whole.

Link to comment
My justification would be sexual relations are to be had between men and women who are legally and lawfully married.

I believe one of the great mistakes in logic is to assume something is okay because it is better than something else which may be horrible. G-d is not about what is okay because it is better than something horrible. G-d is about what is best because it is right and true. He has given commandments and it is up to those that receive the commandments to keep them. LDS have a higher understanding of marriage than most Christians. Because we have greater light we should demonstrate greater light. The problem is that many non-LDS are more obedient to the light in marriage they receive than are many LDS - thus they are not impressed with our light.

If LDS marriage is not obviously better for those seeking the best in marriage then any argument over a possible eternal marriage is mute. If the example has failed then the warning is confused. If the world see no improvement - why should they believe it or seek after it?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that #3, non-member family considerations, is most interesting for me. If I convert, and become engaged to someone LDS, I know that my non-member parents and siblings would take it VERY hard if I only had a temple wedding that they could not be present at. Having a ring ceremony after wouldn't be the same, and I know how upset they would be, since family is so important to them, and they missed out on such an important part of family.

Jesus talked about this very principle - He said something about loving father, mother, brother or sister more than him. Or something like that.

The Traveler

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