Sign in to follow this  
Backroads

Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?

Recommended Posts

I noticed that the Church is doing away with time-only marriage ceremonies in the temple. My thoughts: "Oh, okay."

My question: Is there any particular benefits that came from a time-only marriage in a temple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Some folks just wanted to get married in a sacred place, but had no intent of being sealed to someone other than their original spouse. It always seemed odd to me that time only marriages would happen there when the concept doesn't align with the whole purpose of temples, but I never really gave it much concern.

Given the way the world is going, I do think this is one more step the church is proactively taking to try and safeguard marriage, and to prevent our church from having to participate in unions we do not agree with. Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people feel that their union is sanctified by being performed in the temple, even if only for time.

I had not heard about this policy change. Makes me a little sad, even though it doesn't touch me at all, AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scottyg said:

Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.

What a thought. You may be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.

I can appreciate others finding it sad, but I suppose I'm personally more neutral. I'm one of those people that thinks the government may as well get out of marriage altogether. Let it be before family/God/community/what have you. Let the temples be about eternal unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I can appreciate others finding it sad, but I suppose I'm personally more neutral. I'm one of those people that thinks the government may as well get out of marriage altogether. Let it be before family/God/community/what have you. Let the temples be about eternal unions.

Agree 100%. Unfortunately it is the other way around. Government will continue to get more involved, the waters will become even more murky, and the definition of marriage will be soiled further.

One day, He whose earth this is, will return and govern it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

It's all a series of chess moves, folks.  We're in the endgame now.

Things have seemed exceedingly reactive lately. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that time will bear out a careful, proactive hand at work.

Share this post


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

Things have seemed exceedingly reactive lately.

Regrettably, having the same impression as of late.
Same boat, hoping the chess moves and proactive hand are revealed sooner than later.

Share this post


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

I noticed that the Church is doing away with time-only marriage ceremonies in the temple. My thoughts: "Oh, okay."

My question: Is there any particular benefits that came from a time-only marriage in a temple?

No benefits, just a personal preference/indulgence that the Church accommodated in gentler times when the values between Church and society we not that far apart. But we have to focus of the essential ordinances if we are going to mature and move toward a Zion society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But we have to focus of the essential ordinances if we are going to mature and move toward a Zion society.

I thought that Zion would feel like home, comfortable and predictable and filled with warmth and security. And I'm sure it will feel that way to those born into it. But for the first time ever, it occurs to me that Zion might feel strange and alien to creatures such as you and me. At the least, getting there will be less than comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I imagine that if I were a youngish widower with small children, and were marrying another widow for time only – I think I would want my children to know that I had (re)married in the temple, if only for the sake of setting a good example for them to aspire to.  But of course, I trust that there are good and sufficient reasons for the Church to make the change that it has made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Backroads said:

I noticed that the Church is doing away with time-only marriage ceremonies in the temple. My thoughts: "Oh, okay."

My question: Is there any particular benefits that came from a time-only marriage in a temple?

My grandpa’s second marriage was in the temple for time only. Both he and his bride were widowed, and their marriage was simply for companionship in their elder years. Both of them considering their original spouse as their eternal companion.  

They married in the temple to show their commitment to the marriage and living worthy of the temple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew a young couple (less than 30 years old) who married for time only in the temple. She was divorced and was working on having her sealing cancelled. They didn't want to wait any more than they had already and both were worthy. Sadly, they were both killed in a car accident just 3 months later (on their way to the temple to attend a sealing of their friends). Her family was able to get them sealed to each other posthumously.

This is when I first learned about time only marriages. I think that they both wanted to be sealed to each other and so they had the temple in mind when they married and kept that promise to each other to marry in the temple. 

Share this post


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

I thought that Zion would feel like home, comfortable and predictable and filled with warmth and security. And I'm sure it will feel that way to those born into it. But for the first time ever, it occurs to me that Zion might feel strange and alien to creatures such as you and me. 

That's if they let you in.

image.png.dd8acc71e215a3e0a821e910645eb14a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Backroads said:

My question: Is there any particular benefits that came from a time-only marriage in a temple?

It is my personal belief that there are great benefits in making our covenants before G-d, Angles and Witnesses. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


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


I imagine that if I were a youngish widower with small children, and were marrying another widow for time only – I think I would want my children to know that I had (re)married in the temple, if only for the sake of setting a good example for them to aspire to.  But of course, I trust that there are good and sufficient reasons for the Church to make the change that it has made.

This is a good point I had not thought of. Many who are older wanted to set some kind of an example for their children and grandchildren to follow.

Share this post


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

My grandpa’s second marriage was in the temple for time only. Both he and his bride were widowed, and their marriage was simply for companionship in their elder years. Both of them considering their original spouse as their eternal companion.  

They married in the temple to show their commitment to the marriage and living worthy of the temple. 

My grandmother and her second husband did this as well.

Share this post


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

We're in the endgame now.

I just realized just how apt a metaphor this is.

We will undoubtedly fall into a phase where it seems like we've lost.  We will feel such loss that we may very well offer up the prayer of finality that Capt Rogers did at the end of Infinity War.

But the Lord sees a lot farther than we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vort said:

I thought that Zion would feel like home, comfortable and predictable and filled with warmth and security. And I'm sure it will feel that way to those born into it. But for the first time ever, it occurs to me that Zion might feel strange and alien to creatures such as you and me. At the least, getting there will be less than comfortable.

Thank heavens! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vort said:

I thought that Zion would feel like home, comfortable and predictable and filled with warmth and security. And I'm sure it will feel that way to those born into it. But for the first time ever, it occurs to me that Zion might feel strange and alien to creatures such as you and me. At the least, getting there will be less than comfortable.

A thought of my own triggered by yours...  A lot of us think that Zion is going to be a place that we find and join.. in which case strange, and alien it might be... But I do not think our task is going to be to find and join Zion... I think it is going to be/is to Build Zion which requires a much more active mindset then just looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Backroads said:

I noticed that the Church is doing away with time-only marriage ceremonies in the temple. My thoughts: "Oh, okay."

My question: Is there any particular benefits that came from a time-only marriage in a temple?

It's a historical legacy that some people still consider important.  The rising generation has little understanding of that history, so probably not.

My version of history:

1) Either hundreds or thousands of years ago (depending on who you ask) there was religious "marriage" and there was simply "taking" a wife.  This played out in reality in any number of ways.  But there was certainly a difference (at least to those who understood the difference).

2) This carried over into the culture of the United States which was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition.  Even until the 1970s and somewhat into the 1980s, the sentiment was that if you had a religious marriage, then there was some benefit.  There was a different cachet (thank you, @Just_A_Guy) the couple had because of a religious marriage.

3) What you describe is simply the LDS version of it.  A temple marriage is different from a non-temple marriage just because it was in the temple.

4) Today, people only consider the temple marriage as a "sealing".  The legal marriage is just a nice afterthought.  But the older generation felt differently.  God sanctioned this marriage in a way that is different than two people wanting to shack-up.  The latter considers marriage to simply be a "piece of paper" that can easily be torn up and thrown out.  But a temple (for time only) marriage is still a type of covenant with God.  It is not a "salvific ordinance".  But there is a seriousness and spiritual element to the covenant being made that the piece of paper simply doesn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

A thought of my own triggered by yours...  A lot of us think that Zion is going to be a place that we find and join.. in which case strange, and alien it might be... But I do not think our task is going to be to find and join Zion... I think it is going to be/is to Build Zion which requires a much more active mindset then just looking for.

From this weeks Come Follow Me lesson intro

Quote

When the elders of the Church first saw the site of the city of Zion—Independence, Missouri—it was not what they expected. Some thought they would find a thriving, industrious community with a strong group of Saints. Instead they found a sparsely populated outpost, lacking the civilization they were used to and inhabited by rough frontier settlers rather than Saints. It turned out that the Lord wasn’t asking them just to come to Zion—He wanted them to build it.

 

Share this post


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

I thought that Zion would feel like home, comfortable and predictable and filled with warmth and security. And I'm sure it will feel that way to those born into it. But for the first time ever, it occurs to me that Zion might feel strange and alien to creatures such as you and me. At the least, getting there will be less than comfortable.

As a person born into the 5th generation of Zion - I have always felt as Abraham - that of being a stranger in a strange land.  There is little of this earth that I find I can strongly attach to.  It is more of a journey to get back home.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

4) Today, people only consider the temple marriage as a "sealing".  The legal marriage is just a nice afterthought.  But the older generation felt differently.  God sanctioned this marriage in a way that is different than two people wanting to shack-up.  The latter considers marriage to simply be a "piece of paper" that can easily be torn up and thrown out.  But a temple (for time only) marriage is still a type of covenant with God.  It is not a "salvific ordinance".  But there is a seriousness and spiritual element to the covenant being made that the piece of paper simply doesn't have.

Within the recent past a marriage for time, in the temple or not, using the verbiage in the Handbook, referenced covenants the parties were making before God and the witnesses.  The last marriage I performed about 6 years ago used that terminology.  In the Handbook today, the verbiage reverences "vows" rather than covenants but still acknowledges these vows are being made before God and witnesses.  I don't know how recently that change was made.

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.  The wedding license was not just  a "piece of paper" and was not used to allow us to "shack-up".  That's kind of a harsh description.  From a practical point of view the wedding had a much greater impact on our lives than the sealing.  From an eternal perspective, of course, not so much.

I think this latest move is simply a step for the Church to get out of the marriage business completely.  I see a day, not too distant, when bishops and stake presidents will no longer perform marriages of any kind.  Couples will need to meet the legal requirements as defined by the government.  The sealing with then be an ordinance for only those who live up to the standards required and will be a sacrament of the Church rather than a governmentally-recognized contract.  A marriage license will no longer be needed, only a recommend for a living ordinance.

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