Guest mormonmusic Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) I agree with Vort. Couples can get married in the temple for time only. They are worthy to attend the temple but may still be sealed to other people.Doesn't it cheapen the whole concept of a temple to allow people to be married "for time" there? Edited September 26, 2011 by mormonmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Why? Marriage for time is an essential issue. It is as important as marriage for eternity. In fact, for those being sealed for the first time, the statement is "for time and all eternity." It isn't just for the hereafter, but recognizes the importance of this earth life as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mormonmusic Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Why? Marriage for time is an essential issue. It is as important as marriage for eternity. In fact, for those being sealed for the first time, the statement is "for time and all eternity." It isn't just for the hereafter, but recognizes the importance of this earth life as well.Because a civil wedding, which is also for time, cheapens the temple ceremony, says a large number of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 MM, I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. Eternal Marriage is celestial marriage. Marriage for Time is terrestrial marriage. You cannot get to the Celestial, without passing first through the Terrestrial, just as you have to get to the Father through the Son. So, I do not think it cheapens anything. It is obedience to God's commandment to marry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 In all the cases of being married for time in the temple that I am aware of (which admittedly are few) its always been the case where both spouses had already been sealed, then lost the partner they were sealed to. So neither one was settling or being denied the blessing of a sealing. In fact they had shown that they knew exactly how important it was. They were simply adapting to the lost of their partners while in mortality in a way that is perfectly acceptable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Doesn't it cheapen the whole concept of a temple to allow people to be married "for time" there?No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mormonmusic Posted September 27, 2011 Report Share Posted September 27, 2011 Rameumpton -- based on your previous answer to my question, then why do we penalize couples for getting a civil wedding on the same day as a temple wedding? I'm not going to respond to this after making this post, as it's a bit of a charged subject for me, but I feel to ask that follow-up question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 27, 2011 Report Share Posted September 27, 2011 Rameumpton -- based on your previous answer to my question, then why do we penalize couples for getting a civil wedding on the same day as a temple wedding?The allegation is false. No one is penalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 27, 2011 Report Share Posted September 27, 2011 It is done to ensure the couple are ready to make an eternal covenant. We also expect people to wait at least a year after they are baptized to receive their endowments. To receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, a man must hold the Aaronic Priesthood at least 3 months, and many bishops wait a full year after baptism to recommend them. All of this is to ensure they are ready to receive greater blessings/responsibilities/covenants. It has nothing to do with penalizing anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classylady Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Doesn't it cheapen the whole concept of a temple to allow people to be married "for time" there?I don't feel it cheapens it. I've attended a wedding in the temple that was for time only. In this situation the bride was a widow and already sealed to her first husband. When she remarried she and her 2nd husband were both temple worthy, so chose to be married for time in the temple rather than having a civil ceremony conducted by their bishop outside of the temple. I think in their situation, they wanted to start their marriage in a very spiritual manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moocow Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I know people on this forum think that I'm projecting my own problems onto everyone else, but it might be that people are really good at hiding it. I know of a lot of people who have hidden sins. No one will say anything because they have hidden sins too. I go to a church school so I see a lot of people in a small town and know too much about everyone. Believe me, it happens more than you think. I just got another wedding invitation for time and all eternity. I wanted to bust out laughing. I think if you're not worthy, you should admit to it. And in turn, those around you in the church should keep their judgments to themselves. If families weren't so pushy to go to the temple, people wouldn't be entering the temple unworthily quite as often. That's the point I wanted to make. And all that stuff about getting married civilly in the temple... that's very rare so why bring it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) And all that stuff about getting married civilly in the temple... that's very rare so why bring it up?Because Dahlia wasn't sure about the exact nature of the marriages in the temple and if they mathematically equal sealing to spouse and since the current topic is about marriages in the temple it's a natural place to ask. As far as MormonMusic, well that topic of civil marriages resulting in waiting times to be sealed (in countries where sealing first is an option) is his own personal scab, I doubt he could resist picking it. Edited November 4, 2011 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan117 Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 If families weren't so pushy to go to the temple, people wouldn't be entering the temple unworthily quite as often. That's the point I wanted to make.That's like saying, "If they would just do away with all these laws then we would have less crime." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) That's like saying, "If they would just do away with all these laws then we would have less crime."Well to be fair it really depends what she means by pushy. Some people think the expectation that a marriage will be in the temple is pushy, and if that's what she means then I disagree that people need to be less pushy. It's like lowering the requirements for an A to a 60% so people 'won't' cheat to get a 90% because nobody expects it of them. If she means people should be more understanding and less judgemental about those who make mistakes (serious though they may be), and I suspect this is what she means from her post, then I agree*. There is pain and suffering associated with sinning, and a cost to repentence, but that pain, suffering, and cost shouldn't be shaming or ostracization from those in the Church.*As always, I reserve the right to have misread. Edited November 4, 2011 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Moocow? I don't know anyone who entered the temple unworthily.I would probably recommend either:A) Getting a different group of friends; After all, it's not like you'd know if they were temple worthy if they weren't close to you, or:B) Not listening to gossip, as it's usually wrong most of the time, anyway.When I grew up, I spent time in a smallish town called Sarnia. Gossip is rife in the community in places like that. Rarely is it true.I know people on this forum think that I'm projecting my own problems onto everyone else, but it might be that people are really good at hiding it. I know of a lot of people who have hidden sins. No one will say anything because they have hidden sins too. I go to a church school so I see a lot of people in a small town and know too much about everyone. Believe me, it happens more than you think. I just got another wedding invitation for time and all eternity. I wanted to bust out laughing. I think if you're not worthy, you should admit to it. And in turn, those around you in the church should keep their judgments to themselves. If families weren't so pushy to go to the temple, people wouldn't be entering the temple unworthily quite as often. That's the point I wanted to make.And all that stuff about getting married civilly in the temple... that's very rare so why bring it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMinja Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Even if people are entering the temple unworthily, why is it important to you? Does it affect your salvation? Does it cheapen your experience in the temple? Yes, it is wrong to enter the temple unworthily- in my mind more wrong than committing the sin that made you unworthy. People shouldn't do it. Do people do it? I'm sure some do, because they don't understand the severity of such an action and want to "cover up" their sins. That doesn't mean "a lot" of people do it, and that doesn't mean it is right. Reminds of when teenagers say "Well so-and-so did blank, so why can't I?". It doesn't matter what so-and-so did. What matters is what is right and whether or not YOU are going to do what is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applepansy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 · Hidden Hidden Can one be married in the temple but not sealed to one's spouse?Yes. It is possible to be married in the temple for time only. Link to comment
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I know that both my roommate and my husband's assumed we weren't worthy to be married in the temple. They were both dead wrong. Incidentally, neither of them are temple worthy today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I had a bishop once that remarried after his wife died. His second wife was a widow who had been married before in the temple. The bishop and his second wife were married in the temple but were not sealed to each other. Congrats Funky. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I know people on this forum think that I'm projecting my own problems onto everyone else, but it might be that people are really good at hiding it. I know of a lot of people who have hidden sins. No one will say anything because they have hidden sins too. I go to a church school so I see a lot of people in a small town and know too much about everyone. Believe me, it happens more than you think. I just got another wedding invitation for time and all eternity. I wanted to bust out laughing. I think if you're not worthy, you should admit to it. And in turn, those around you in the church should keep their judgments to themselves. If families weren't so pushy to go to the temple, people wouldn't be entering the temple unworthily quite as often. That's the point I wanted to make.And all that stuff about getting married civilly in the temple... that's very rare so why bring it up?While I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, I don't understand why you are saying it. Looking at this thread as a whole, it's almost like you're trying to justify going through unworthily because "everyone else is doing it". Forgive me if that's not what you mean, but it is the impression I'm getting.But yes, if you're not worthy, 'fess up to the proper authorities. I still don't think you have to tell the whole world why you're not worthy or even why you're not getting married in the temple because it's none of their business.I also agree that family pressue is a pretty powerful thing. LDS families want their kids to get married in the temple--but on the other end of the spectrum you have non-LDS families furious and heartbroken because their kids do want to get married in the temple. But we won't go there. Yes, family pressure can be a bad thing in cases like this, but it is still no excuse for lying. You said it yourself, admit it. People need to get a backbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moocow Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I definitely have no intention of going to the temple unworthily. And I know it doesn't effect my salvation if other do. My purpose in bringing it up is that I guess I do have connections or tend to be surrounded by a lot of crazy college kids and I know way too much about them. And it's not just "gossip". Plus I kind of fall into the same category. I agree that most people are worthy when they are married. I'm just frustrated to see people so desperate to put up a front that they are willing to lie to the Lord and make huge covenants half-heartedly. I know it shouldn't matter what people do, but I'm just pointing out that it's kind of strange how few LDS people get married civilly. The only ones you hear about getting married civilly are also inactive, so it's not a shocker. I'm honestly not too worried about it anymore. I'm over it. I'm happy with my own life and I love church and won't let peer pressure override my dedication to the Lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightningbug Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) · Hidden Hidden ....... Edited December 5, 2011 by lightningbug Link to comment
splash Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) He said that all sins will eventually be repented of. The Millennium will serve lots of purposes.I agree with that : ) Thanks for sharing that story. Edited December 9, 2011 by Pegasus_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splash Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) I'm confused. If a couple was dating and broke the laws of chastity, but repented with the bishop and all of that (I'll assume the bishop would want some time to pass, etc.) couldn't they get a recommend and get married in the temple? Or are you saying that people get temple marriages who have not been chaste and lie about it to get their recommend? Yes, they may be able to. The time frame before a temple sealing and disciplinary action after pre-marital sex and other chastity violations is up to the Bishop (Stake President may be invovled too). Bishops and Stake Presidents are called to be judges in Israel and receive inspiration from God. They help members become temple worthy again. There is no specific wait time before a temple sealing except for new converts or civil marriages. Then there is a year wait before a temple sealing (but I have heard of a Bishop successfully petitioning for two convert couples to have the year waiting period suspended). I know Priesthood leaders are called of God and recieve inspiration from him. God sees the big picture and prompts his leaders accordingly. :)"Behold his mission is given unto him, and it shall be given again. And whoso standeth in this mission is appointed to be a judge in Israel, like as it was in ancient days, to dived the lands of the heritage of God unto his Children; And to judge his people by the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God" (D&C 58: 16-18). D&C 58: 13-18- "Bishops are judges in Israel" (D&C 58 verses summary).D&C 68-76- "Bishops serve as common judges in Israel" (D&C 68 verses summary). Edited January 1, 2012 by Pegasus_ signature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.