Sign in to follow this  
Backroads

Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I think it is going to be/is to Build Zion which requires a much more active mindset then just looking for.

Think not when you gather to Zion,
Your troubles and trials are through,
That nothing but comfort and pleasure
Are waiting in Zion for you.
No, no, 'tis designed as a furnace,
All substance, all textures to try,
To burn all the " wood, hay, and stubble, "
The gold from the dross purify.

Think not when you gather to Zion,
That all will be holy and pure;
That fraud and deception are banished,
And confidence wholly secure.
No, no, for the Lord our Redeemer
Has said that the tares with the wheat
Must grow till the great day of burning
Shall render the harvest complete.

Think not when you gather to Zion,
The saints here have nothing to do
But to look to your personal welfare,
And always be comforting you.
No, those who are faithful are doing
What they find to do with their might;
To gather the scattered of Israel
They labor by day and by night.

Think not when you gather to Zion,
The prize and the victory won.
Think not that the warfare is ended,
The work of salvation is done.
No, no, for the great prince of darkness
A tenfold exertion will make,
When he sees you go to the fountain,
Where freely the truth you may take.

-Eliza R. Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hzdbl5 said:

When my wife and I were married civilly, we did not have any less of a commitment to our relationship than when we were sealed a couple of months later.  For us the end goal was the same.  Our marriage felt no less serious than our sealing. 

And I'm certain that many other sects have couples who feel that their marriage is for all eternity as well even if they don't believe in any power of the temple.  Doesn't make it a covenant by priesthood authority.

The handbook also emphasized that marriages performed by bishops in our chapels (back when that was allowed) were "civil marriages only".  They were not considered "religious marriages" as far as the Church is concerned.  That didn't stop people from thinking they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And I'm certain that many other sects have couples who feel that their marriage is for all eternity as well even if they don't believe in any power of the temple.

Are they wrong to believe that?

Assuming (as I do) that all of these ordinances will be performed for everyone (by proxy if not by the people themselves) before all is said and done, then it seems basically correct for them to believe that they will be together forever. They may be "seeing through a glass darkly" so that they cannot see or understand how our priesthood and temple ordinances are part of getting from where they are now to that together forever future, but the ordinance will be properly completed so that, when the do come to understand (and accept), they will be able to be together forever.

From our lofty position, we may better understand how they will get from where they are to realizing that eternal relationship, but their belief still seems basically correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Are they wrong to believe that?

Assuming (as I do) that all of these ordinances will be performed for everyone (by proxy if not by the people themselves) before all is said and done, then it seems basically correct for them to believe that they will be together forever. They may be "seeing through a glass darkly" so that they cannot see or understand how our priesthood and temple ordinances are part of getting from where they are now to that together forever future, but the ordinance will be properly completed so that, when the do come to understand (and accept), they will be able to be together forever.

From our lofty position, we may better understand how they will get from where they are to realizing that eternal relationship, but their belief still seems basically correct.

The belief is basically correct but it can drive incorrect behavior.  If they believe they already have it... so when they are told what it takes to get it they reject it thinking they do not need it.  Well that rejection would keep them from getting it.

Its the same idea behind the belief in God's Grace and Love.  Its a totally correct belief, but it does not preclude the need to obey God's commandments and do the work commanded of us. Yet many will argue and act as if it does.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Are they wrong to believe that?

Yes, they are wrong to believe that.

They have not made and kept covenants that have been made by authority with the power which binds in heaven and earth.

Just because ordinances are done for them, doesn't mean they will accept those ordinances.  And if they don't accept them in mortality, they probably won't accept them in eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just because ordinances are done for them, doesn't mean they will accept those ordinances.  And if they don't accept them in mortality, they probably won't accept them in eternity.

I agree with this way of reasoning, but it seems to be a minority opinion among the Saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with this way of reasoning, but it seems to be a minority opinion among the Saints.

There is some common notion that it is almost "unfair" that so many people get the opportunity to accept "without faith".  i.e. they arrive in the Spirit World and find that they will all of a sudden have full remembrance of the entire plan before the world was.  And they will obviously accept.  

That just isn't so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There is some common notion that it is almost "unfair" that so many people get the opportunity to accept "without faith".  i.e. they arrive in the Spirit World and find that they will all of a sudden have full remembrance of the entire plan before the world was.  And they will obviously accept.  

That just isn't so.

Random thoughts:

1). Even if they do immediately accept—getting someone to actually do the work is another matter.  Having declined the opportunity for a temple sealing with Joseph Smith during his lifetime, Jane Manning James waited the rest of her life—over sixty years—for another shot at a temple sealing; and much ink has been spilt amongst the LDS intelligentsia about how agonizing the experience must have been for her.

2). An intriguing idea I saw floated a couple years ago—and I wish I could remember who posited it—was roughly thus:  what if the dissolution of non-temple marriages isn’t the result of a proactive cursing from God, but simply a result of the fact that the natural state of human relationships is to evolve and, over time, deteriorate into tolerance, apathy, and then  disdain?  What if un-sealed couples, rather than being separated by some external force, simply lose interest in each other over time?  What if the primary power of the sealing ritual lies, not in some mystical and mysterious “preservative” applied to the union by God; but in the perspective and power that come simply from knowing that marriage is supposed to be eternal and then from making God a full partner in the quest to make that goal a reality? 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There is some common notion that it is almost "unfair" that so many people get the opportunity to accept "without faith".  i.e. they arrive in the Spirit World and find that they will all of a sudden have full remembrance of the entire plan before the world was.  And they will obviously accept.  

That just isn't so.

I sometimes wonder about how missionary work will go in the Spirit World

Missionary: Let me tell you about Jesus Christ

Investigator: Wait, am I dead?

M: Yep, so am I

I: We're both dead?

M: Sure are, now you get a chance to learn about the gospel.

I: We're both dead, and we're both in the same place?

M: Well, yeah.  I'm here to share with you the good news!

I: Since we're in the same place, I don't think you got it right.

I walks (floats?) away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they do immediately accept—getting someone to actually do the work is another matter.  Having declined the opportunity for a temple sealing with Joseph Smith during his lifetime, Jane Manning James waited the rest of her life—over sixty years—for another shot at a temple sealing; and much ink has been spilt amongst the LDS intelligentsia about how agonizing the experience must have been for her.

One of the most heartbreaking parts of her story is that she truly didn't understand what it meant to be "adopted" as a "child". Perhaps, Emma assumed that Jane understood what it meant but as Jane said "I didn't know my own mind. I didn't comprehend."

 

 

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Suzie said:

Even if they do immediately accept—getting someone to actually do the work is another matter.  Having declined the opportunity for a temple sealing with Joseph Smith during his lifetime, Jane Manning James waited the rest of her life—over sixty years—for another shot at a temple sealing; and much ink has been spilt amongst the LDS intelligentsia about how agonizing the experience must have been for her.

One of the most heartbreaking parts of her story is that she truly didn't understand what it meant to be "adopted" as a "child". Perhaps, Emma assumed that Jane understood what it meant but as Jane said "I didn't know my own mind. I didn't comprehend."

 

 

Amateur historian Meg Stout has suggested — and although I disagree with her on some things, I think she’s onto something here — that what was actually being offered to Jane was a polygamous sealing; though between the loose terminology Joseph and Emma used and Jane’s own ignorance of the concept at the time, she may well have not fully understood.  IIRC, Stout points out that the Smiths weren’t offering adoptive sealings to anyone else—male or female—at this point in time; Jane was unmarried and likely a victim of previous sexual exploitation (as Stout alleges some of his other plural wives were, thus setting up a sort of protective relationship between Smith and these wives in the future); and a polygamous sealing between Joseph and Jane would have established a pattern of racial egalitarianism much more than an adoptive sealing would have.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amateur historian Meg Stout has suggested — and although I disagree with her on some things, I think she’s onto something here — that what was actually being offered to Jane was a polygamous sealing; though between the loose terminology Joseph and Emma used and Jane’s own ignorance of the concept at the time, she may well have not fully understood.  IIRC, Stout points out that the Smiths weren’t offering adoptive sealings to anyone else—male or female—at this point in time; Jane was unmarried and likely a victim of previous sexual exploitation (as Stout alleges some of his other plural wives were, thus setting up a sort of protective relationship between Smith and these wives in the future); and a polygamous sealing between Joseph and Jane would have established a pattern of racial egalitarianism much more than an adoptive sealing would have.  

Interesting. Taking into account Jane's own words, she described the Prophet (and Emma) treating her as a "child", as part of their family. I think this is the reason why she was confused, perhaps even wondering if it is possible at all for a an adult woman to be "adopted".

 I have been working and researching with little success who could be the earliest LDS black woman to convert to the LDS Church. Let's see how it ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2021 at 7:50 AM, estradling75 said:

The belief is basically correct but it can drive incorrect behavior.  If they believe they already have it... so when they are told what it takes to get it they reject it thinking they do not need it.  Well that rejection would keep them from getting it.

Its the same idea behind the belief in God's Grace and Love.  Its a totally correct belief, but it does not preclude the need to obey God's commandments and do the work commanded of us. Yet many will argue and act as if it does.

 

 

 

Agreed. The blessings of the gospel are not simply prizes for doing what God tells us to do. Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost requires a great deal of effort on our part as do all the blessings of the gospel. And it won't be any different there. Sure everyone will have a chance to accept the gospel in the spirit world but there is just as much implied in that "acceptance" there as there is here and our nature's aren't going to change just because we don't have physical bodies. In fact it is taught that change there is harder than change here so if anything "accepting" those blessings will be even harder for those who rejected it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this