Do you know of a member married to non member and are very happy with there marrige?

[NextElement]

So a marriage is considered valid even if it is done outside of the Church?

[Guest]

So a marriage is considered valid even if it is done outside of the Church?

 

Any marriage that is legal in the land it was performed is a valid marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - FOR TIME ONLY... That is - it ends at death.

 

For it to transcend death into Eternal Life - it must be sealed in the Temple under Priesthood Authority (what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and all that).  Not all LDS baptized individuals can enter the temple.  So, there is a requirement of worthiness added to make the sealing covenant.

 

Just like baptism, sealings can be performed vicariously (at least one person in the sealing covenant has passed away).  These vicarious sealings can only be performed for couples who were legally married.

[estradling75]

Any marriage that is legal in the land it was performed is a valid marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - FOR TIME ONLY... That is - it ends at death.

 

 

 

Slight but important correction... Any marriage between a man and a women.  The church does not recognize same sex marriages no matter how legal they might be.  (Of course the impact of this recognition is only extended to church related worthiness type things)

[Quin]

Slight but important correction... Any marriage between a man and a women. The church does not recognize same sex marriages no matter how legal they might be. (Of course the impact of this recognition is only extended to church related worthiness type things)

Exactly, and I want to highlight your parentheses...

Because as members who also follow (and are counseled to follow) both the law of the land AND to love gay people as "sons & daughters of god" it means that in our secular interactions with married gay people, that we accord them the same respect we accord married straight people (allowing spousal access in hospitals, using the correct title, etc,).

Which may seem kind of "duh" to most LDS... But I have friends in other churches who are counseled NOT to view gay marriage as valid, and as such in every way to block them:

- Not using correct titles (Miss instead of Mrs., "Your boyfriend" -or worse- instead of "husband" even after being corrected, etc.)

- Not serving them (be it their kids paperwork at school, or family membership at the zoo, etc.)

- Blocking all spousal privilege whenever possible (like not accepting their word that they're married and forcing he spouse to go get their marriage certificate & 2 forms of ID before allowing access in the hospital, etc.)

- etc.

Q

[Dravin]

It's like clockwork, if someone says you should marry in the faith someone comes along and argues you shouldn't marry someone just because they are in the faith. Of course the statement that argument is attempting to rebut isn't, "You should marry in the faith." yet it pops up anyway.

[Guest]

It's like clockwork, if someone says you should marry in the faith someone comes along and argues you shouldn't marry someone just because they are in the faith. Of course the statement that argument is attempting to rebut isn't, "You should marry in the faith." yet it pops up anyway.

 

In my case, that's not the issue I was rebutting...

 

It's the opposite of it - "You shouldn't marry outside of the faith".  I took exception to the viewpoint that happiness in marriages outside of the faith is a rare occurrence.  And of course I took exception to it as a prime example of happiness outside the faith.

 

You know how when you buy a goldfish, you tend to see all these goldfish-owning people and how there's so many of them now that you got a goldfish?

[The Folk Prophet]

In my case, that's not the issue I was rebutting...

 

It's the opposite of it - "You shouldn't marry outside of the faith".  I took exception to the viewpoint that happiness in marriages outside of the faith is a rare occurrence.  And of course I took exception to it as a prime example of happiness outside the faith.

 

You know how when you buy a goldfish, you tend to see all these goldfish-owning people and how there's so many of them now that you got a goldfish?

 

The issue of whether it is valid to promote marrying outside the faith or not is not whether the marriage can be a happy one or not. Our temporal satisfaction in life is not really the point. The point is two-fold from an LDS perspective. 1. If an LDS person can be happy married to someone who is not involved in their faith then it is indicative of a problem. The LDS faith is not a casual thing that a faithful member should be so cavalier about. And eternal marriage is not something that a faithful LDS person should be cavalier about. Of course people can be happy in their marriages outside of temple marriage. But if an LDS person chooses to skip an eternal marriage in favor of other issue it is indicative of a problem. 2. As I said, temporal happiness in the marriage is not the issue. Eternal salvation is. With that as the prime criteria for who we choose to marry, we should be choosing eternal, temple marriages.

 

Everything is secondary to this. What does love matter if you miss out on eternity? What good is getting along if exaltation is spent? How can we possibly recommend that anyone consciously make a choice that could damage these things and, possibly set a pattern that will be inherited for generations to come, potentially driving our posterity away from eternal life?

[Guest]

The issue of whether it is valid to promote marrying outside the faith or not is not whether the marriage can be a happy one or not. Our temporal satisfaction in life is not really the point. The point is two-fold from an LDS perspective. 1. If an LDS person can be happy married to someone who is not involved in their faith then it is indicative of a problem. The LDS faith is not a casual thing that a faithful member should be so cavalier about. And eternal marriage is not something that a faithful LDS person should be cavalier about. Of course people can be happy in their marriages outside of temple marriage. But if an LDS person chooses to skip an eternal marriage in favor of other issue it is indicative of a problem. 2. As I said, temporal happiness in the marriage is not the issue. Eternal salvation is. With that as the prime criteria for who we choose to marry, we should be choosing eternal, temple marriages.

 

Everything is secondary to this. What does love matter if you miss out on eternity? What good is getting along if exaltation is spent? How can we possibly recommend that anyone consciously make a choice that could damage these things and, possibly set a pattern that will be inherited for generations to come, potentially driving our posterity away from eternal life?

 

Read the thread title.