There seems to be continuing dissatisfaction among Mormons over the workings of their church. In addition to the “wear pants to church” movement, the “give women the priesthood” movement, and the “pull The Not Even Once Club off the bookstore shelves” movement, Slate magazine recently published an article about the exclusivity of temple sealings (weddings).
In “Sorry, Your Friends Can’t Come to Your Mormon Wedding,” journalist Holly Welker explores the Mormon Church policy of, as she puts it, “punishing couples who have separate civil ceremonies by making them wait a year for a temple marriage.”
This is the policy in a nutshell: Unless required by law, Mormon couples are urged to eschew inclusive civil marriage ceremonies in favor of exclusive temple sealing ceremonies. If a couple chooses to proceed with a civil ceremony in order to include their family and friends in the wedding, they are then required to wait a full year before being allowed to be sealed “for time and eternity” in a Mormon temple. During this waiting period, according to a 1960 Church handbook, the couple will “demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing” (the 2010 handbook continues the policy, but gives no reason for it).
This does sound a bit like punishment, doesn’t it?
The Mormon marriage policy, which comes into play in only a few countries throughout the world, causes great distress, not only for the engaged couples whose temple sealings would exclude parents, grandparents, siblings and treasured friends from their weddings, but also for all those excluded.
According to Ms. Welker (and others), it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it isn’t this way outside of the US, Canada and South Africa. And it wasn’t this way anywhere before 1960. But today the choice seems to be a measure of a couple’s faithfulness.
“Over time, the policy of exclusion has become so important that ‘young Mormons think it’s a commandment, and they think they’re breaking a commandment and doing something sinful if they get married outside the temple,’ says [Jean] Bodie. ‘Rejecting and excluding your inactive or nonmember family is a mark of being a good Mormon,’ because the alternative is so shameful.”
Because this whole thing is based on Church policy (not doctrine or commandment),
“some faithful Mormons are asking leaders to reconsider the policy of forcing couples wherever possible to wait a year for the sealing if they also have a civil ceremony. A new website, Family First Weddings, collects statements about the policy and encourages members to write respectful letters to the church hierarchy explaining how the policy hurts them and their relationships.”
For example, “Dreading the Happiest Moment of My Life” tells the story of a young woman who grew up knowing that her non-Mormon father would not be allowed to attend her future wedding. She wrote,
“I wonder how many tears I wouldn’t have had to shed during my teenage and college years worrying and wondering what would happen when the moment [of my temple wedding] came… I wonder how much I sacrificed for the sake of a policy that I assumed was the eternal word of the Lord.”
Many more stories on the Family First Weddings site describe various ways this Mormon Church policy wounds people, as their titles testify: “Heartbreak on a Day of Joy,” “Supporting but in Pain,” “My Empty Wedding,” “My Wedding Sans Siblings,” and “Painful Wedding Day,” to name but a few.
Family First Weddings explains, “…we are asking our Church leaders to inquire of the Lord if the one year wait on the temple sealing can be changed…” Ms. Welker contacted a Church spokesman for a comment about this new campaign and was told only that “Church leaders are aware of, and sensitive to, this issue.”
One might also wonder if Church leaders are aware of Doctrine and Covenants Section CI (101) from the 1835 edition, which reads in part,
“…we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.” (1835, Section CI:1)
This Section of Doctrine and Covenants was included in Mormon scripture for over 40 years, but was removed from the D&C for the 1876 edition. Since the prevailing thought is that Section CI was deleted due to its denial of plural marriage (while the practice of plural marriage was in full swing in the 1876 Mormon Church), its statement that Mormon marriages should be solemnized in a public meeting need not be discarded as if throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Perhaps Mormon Church leaders will be moved to compassion by the pleadings of the people over whom they hold spiritual sway. One can only hope that they will remove “the heavy burdens, hard to bear,” that they have laid on the shoulders of these couples for the sake of mere policy (Matthew 23:4).
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
(Matthew 11:28-30)
Rick,
It’s a different god and a different Jesus with the LDS Mormons. The LDS folks have their own god of this planet who may or may not have been Min the Egyptian fertility god as pictured in the BoA or Adam as taught by Brigham Young.
So the Mormon god Min-Adam does not approve of wine. He probably had a talk with Jesus about that. OOPS! MY BAD!! I forgot about progressive revelation. Things change in Mormonism. Their god changes as do all of the various rules and rituals.
You see, the Mormon god is progressing in knowledge and wisdom. He just got a lot smarter and wiser later on thus the Word of Wisdom that even Joseph Smith didn’t keep in various ways.
Spartacus
In my last post I gave no justification, and that was not my intent. My intent was to address a specific comment from the article and explain the reasons behind certain actions and why the comment made did not really support the argument that is being put forward.
However, since you are interested, I will give you the justification, and that is simply a matter of faith. The highest ordinance of the church is the Sealing ordinance, for it is the door to exaltation. It is the greatest blessing we can receive while still in this life. For us to gain that blessing we must show God that we have the faith to seek it. A person who is able to enter the Temple and be sealed by the priesthood, but who chooses a civil marriage first has shown a lack of faith. They have, in essense, told God that their family relationships are more important to them than Him. Having shown this lack of faith it is then required for them to wait a time so that they can once again show sufficient faith. In addition, a person who shows this lack of faith must also show that they are committed to the relationship they have entered into before it is made eternal.
It has happened many times that people are too impatient for a Temple marriage, and find before the year is out that they no longer wish to remain married. It is easier to unbind a civil marriage than a temple sealing. It has also happened that those who have given into the pressures of family and friends for a civil marriage later give into that same pressure and fall away from the church. It is better for their eternal welfare that they never enter into the highest orders of the Priesthood before this happens.
While most people remain together and do not fall away these are reasons, and in my opinion good reasons for them to delay a sealing if they willingly chose a civil marriage first.
Old Man
Is it time for your arrogant indignation again?
Luke 12: 51-53 is dealing with the topic, as it was brought into the discussion as a scripture that actually does support the church’s position. I have not strayed from the topic of temple marriage and civil marriage at all, so please stop with your false accusations.
As to the meaning of the verse, I am not going to enter into another pointless debate with you on any of these things you claim we must prove before we interpret the scriptures. We believe this is the gospel; we also believe that this passage from Luke states directly that the doctrines and practices of the gospel will cause family divisions. Therefore, this topic is a fulfillment of that scripture, and I don’t really care how much you rant and rave about it. I allow you your interpretation, please have the courtesy to allow me mine, or simply leave me alone.
“Is it time for your arrogant indignation again?
Luke 12: 51-53 is dealing with the topic, as it was brought into the discussion as a scripture that actually does support the church’s position. I have not strayed from the topic of temple marriage and civil marriage at all, so please stop with your false accusations.”
Yes I’m indignant but I’m afraid it’s your arrogance that is showing, not mine. You know full well what that passage from Luke is referring to & it isn’t Temple marriage. Who was Christ talking to? He was talking to His Jewish brethren; He was taking of family division caused by acceptance or non-acceptance of HIS message of salvation. Do I have to remind you that it was your good self who said that temple marriage was part of the gospel? That’s something that cannot be found or even hinted at anywhere in Scripture. I merely asked you to justify your remark (something you cannot do) before quoting from Luke.
“As to the meaning of the verse, I am not going to enter into another pointless debate with you on any of these things you claim we must prove before we interpret the scriptures.”
Of course you wont, but not because it’s pointless, the reason you refuse to discuss it is because you know that I am right. This is a Christian site & the doctrines we talk about are found within the pages of the Bible. That is the only revelation we accept. If you refuse to show us where in the Bible your doctrines can be found then we have no choice but to believe that they cannot be found there & as such they must be false. You are quite prepared to say what you believe but when I call on you to prove that what you say is true you cannot do so & instead resort to accusations of ranting & raving. So, show me where I ranted & raved & while you’re about it, show me where I have made false accusations.
“I allow you your interpretation, please have the courtesy to allow me mine, or simply leave me alone.”
It’s not my ‘interpretation’ it’s the obvious & accepted meaning of those verses according to all the rules of interpretation. Your interpretation is dependent on Temple marriage being practised during the time of Christ, which of course is complete nonsense. You are free to interpret in any way you choose but if you come in here & tell Christians things that are contrary to Scripture without offering a shred of proof then you shouldn’t complain if you are taken to task over it.
Old Man
It is pointless because no matter how many scriptures I give you will always tell me that I don’t understand the passage, rant yourself into a frenzy over our misuse of the Bible, and then claim that I didn’t give you anything, which would be false. This is how you have always acted and how I assume you will act now and in the future.
Now, if there is someone who is interested to know where we believe the Bible talks of this doctrine and would like to know our perspective, and who isn’t going to just yell at us that we are vile arrogant men for daring to interpret the Bible differently from them, then I will be willing to list such references.
“it’s the obvious & accepted meaning of those verses according to all the rules of interpretation.”
The obvious interpretation is that the doctrine that Christ taught would cause divisions among families. Anything beyond this is not a part of the interpretation of Luke 12: 51-53. What then has to be considered is what Christ actually taught. We believe he taught the truths of eternal marriage. We have not misinterpreted this passage in any way, we have simply applied it to what we believe to be the doctrine of Christ. Your argument is thus baseless when you say we have misused this passage, because we haven’t.
Yet, Shem, you have misused the passage.
Shem
“It is pointless because no matter how many scriptures I give you will always tell me that I don’t understand the passage, rant yourself into a frenzy over our misuse of the Bible, and then claim that I didn’t give you anything, which would be false. This is how you have always acted and how I assume you will act now and in the future.”
Would someone, anyone, care to tell me or show me where I “rant myself into a frenzy”? Can they show me where I have “always acted” that way?
I don’t claim that you never give me anything but I do claim that you rarely give me what I ask for & that’s usually because you can’t. It seems to me that you’re the one who’s getting frenzied.
“The obvious interpretation is that the doctrine that Christ taught would cause divisions among families. Anything beyond this is not a part of the interpretation of Luke 12: 51-53. What then has to be considered is what Christ actually taught. We believe he taught the truths of eternal marriage. We have not misinterpreted this passage in any way, we have simply applied it to what we believe to be the doctrine of Christ. Your argument is thus baseless when you say we have misused this passage, because we haven’t.”
Unless you can show us from Scripture that the Gospel of Christ includes eternal marriage, that it includes temple marriage & sealing, often to multiple wives, then you have misused that passage. May I refer you to Mark 12:20-25 where it is made clear that LDS doctrine concerning marriage is false.
Old Man
I exaggerate at times, but the point is still the same. You have, on almost every discussion I have had with you, resorted to simply telling me that I misuse the scriptures, and when I do give a list reference you reply with this same accusation and then conclude that because you think I misused the scriptures that I haven’t actually answered anything, and thus falsely make the conclusion that I have not, and could not, give what was asked for.
To put it simply, what you are really asking asking for is for me to list scriptures that you interpret to be speaking on this doctrine, and you will reject out of hand any other interpretation, so what is the point of responding.
MJP
How have we misused the passage. We have not. We have asserted simply that this verse states that the doctrine of the gospel will cause divisions among families. How is this a misuse of the passage?
You refer to it as a misuse for the sole reason that you believe that Christ taught different doctrine than what we believe he taught.
It is like telling a person he is misusing a hammer because he is building a wagon instead of sled. The use of the hammer is still the same and is being used properly; it is what it is being used on that can be said to be wrong.
As I said, we are using the passage as it was meant to be used, but applying it to something that you don’t think it should be applied to.
Shem
“To put it simply, what you are really asking asking for is for me to list scriptures that you interpret to be speaking on this doctrine, and you will reject out of hand any other interpretation, so what is the point of responding.”
No Shem that isn’t what I’m asking. What I am asking for is the same thing I have asked for many times in the past, not just of you, but of all Mormons who use the BofM or other Mormon documents as proof of doctrine & it’s simply this.
Unless I’m badly mistaken, very little LDS doctrine can be found in the Christian Scriptures. So, if you can prove for example, that the doctrine of temple marriage & sealing is correct by using the Bible then I will accept that doctrine. I simply ask you to show me where it may be found.
I say the Bible because we as Christians do not accept scripture over & above that which was ‘once for all delivered to the saints’ Jude 1:3
Ps. I asked how you reconcile our Lords teaching in Mark 12:20-25 with Joseph Smiths doctrine of eternal Marriage. I am genuinely interested in hearing your response.
My husband and I have missed out on many family weddings, including my sister in laws. But nobody was sad or distraught about it. They just felt like they had achieved this higher level of spirituality and that my husband and I just weren’t there yet. I commend couples that try to do both a civil and temple marriage to include non members/ non worthy members but I am certainly not surprised by the church’s stance. The more exclusive the club, the more pride the members take in belonging to it. They want to makes sure young couples know just how ostracized they would be should they chose to leave or fall short of the churches standards.
You misuse the passage by creating a doctrine and practice that is not to be found in the Gospel. These sorts of marriages are not what Jesus was talking about, and your excusing of the practice of temple marriages with this passage is a perversion of the original message.
Old Man
You say you can keep an open mind as to the interpretation of Biblical passages, than let’s try it. Here are four verses that speak directly to the eternal nature of marriage and its importance for our salvation.
Ecclesiastes 3: 14
“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.”
If what God does is forever, than if God marries a man and woman (as He did Adam and Eve) than that marriage will last forever.
Matthew 16: 19
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
If a marriage is sealed by these keys of the kingdom while on earth than that same marriage is sealed in heaven as well.
1 Corinthians 11: 11-12
“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.”
The man is not in the Lord without the woman, and woman is not in the Lord without the man. Both must be connected in some relationship in order to be in the Lord (in other words to be saved in heaven). What is that relationship if not a marriage that has been sealed by the those holding the Keys of the Kingdom.
1 Peter 3: 7
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
Again the husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life, or the salvation of God. It is when they are joined together that they are heirs, which is why Peter tells men to treat their wives nicely, because without them the men could not be saved.
As to Mark 12: 20-25, let us rather start at verse 18:
18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
We will also look at the account of this given in Matthew, but for now let us consider the basis for the question that the Sadducees and asking. It is given in Deuteronomy 25: 5 “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.”
This custom was practiced as least as early as Jacob and his twelve sons, as Judah had a daughter in law that, when her husband died, he gave to his second son (see Genesis 38) and also figures prominently in the story of Ruth.
The custom (also known as a Levirite marriage) was that the brother would take the widow to wife, but that the children born of that union would be counted as the children of the husband that had died. In this way the dead would have a mortal posterity. Of course, we also see this in its eternal sense: the first husband would have been sealed to the woman, and thus any children she had would be born into that sealing, making them the children of the first husband in the eternities as well as in mortality. The brother who married her was not sealed to her, but rather married only civilly, which is why children born through him were counted as being sealed to the first husband through the natural sealing to the mother.
Now, the Sadducees denied the resurrection and in so doing could not fully understand these scriptures. This is what Christ was addressing. In this situation that they presented to Christ the six brothers were not sealed to the woman and so those marriages were on none effect in heaven, but are like the angels who have not the blessing of eternal marriage.
Another note to make comes from the account in Matthew 22: 25 in which the question is put this way “Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother…”
Notice the phrase “there were with us” which leads some to believe that the Sadducees were speaking about an actual family that had lived at that time and was known for this misfortune. In this thought Christ’s initial answer is directed only to that specific family and is not to be applied to all people.
I do not personally agree with this idea completely, but rather think that it was a specific family being addressed but that Christ was stating the nature of the doctrine and the relationships of the Levirite Marriage.
Shem
“You say you can keep an open mind as to the interpretation of Biblical passages, than let’s try it. Here are four verses that speak directly to the eternal nature of marriage and its importance for our salvation.”
You’re a clever man Shem but you’re also a devious one. You’re hoping that if I don’t agree with your comments I will be guilty of having a closed mind, well, I’m too old to be caught out by that little trick so let’s look at what I really said.
“So, if you can prove for example, that the doctrine of temple marriage & sealing is correct by using the Bible then I will accept that doctrine. I simply ask you to show me where it may be found.”
Now let’s see if you have proved it.
Ecclesiastes 3 is concerned with time. Verse 14 is contrasting the works of God with the works of man in time & taken in context with the rest of the chapter rather than in isolation cannot be applied to marriage. Incidentally, God didn’t ‘marry’ Adam & Eve, He formed Eve from one of Adams ribs & the two were as one.
Matthew 16:19
Again, you take a verse out of context & apply it to the Mormon version of marriage I’ll make no further comment because none is needed.
Corinthians 11:11-12
Chapter 11 is concerned with the behaviour of women in church & their relationship with their husbands & has nothing to do with Heavenly marriage or sealing. Please explain what you mean by ‘those holding the keys of the Kingdom’
Peter 3:7
Peter is here talking about the way a husband treats his wife. You misinterpret what is being said, ‘grace of life’ is not talking about salvation it simply means enjoying the kind of life together that God intended for married men & women. Your comments on the above passages suggest that you are subtly attempting to insert Mormon doctrine into the Bible.
I’m not going to say anything about Mark & with respect I really don’t need you to explain marriage customs in Biblical times to me. You are reading into Mark & into marriage something that simply isn’t there.
Everything you have said has been from the perspective of Mormon doctrine. It is rare indeed for a Mormon to use a verse in context with the surrounding verses or even the entire chapter & that my friend is what correct interpretation is about.
Old Man
And you have proven my point. Of course I am devious, and I told you at least twice before exactly what I expected, and you said that my expectations were unfounded (or at least hinted at it). I am not going to go back through those verses again because, as you have once again proven, there is no point.
As I said before, you want proof, but are only willing to accept it as such if it conforms to your interpretation of the Bible. If one attempts to interpret the Bible in a different way then you simply tell them they misuse the Bible and dismiss everything they say.
Now, if anyone else cares to consider why I would say what I did regarding these verses I would happy to discuss it.
Shem
“I told you at least twice before exactly what I expected, and you said that my expectations were unfounded (or at least hinted at it).”
I said nothing of the kind, I hinted at nothing of the kind. This is what I said
“So, if you can prove for example, that the doctrine of temple marriage & sealing is correct by using the Bible then I will accept that doctrine. I simply ask you to show me where it may be found.”
You have NOT showed me where those verses may be found. Those you quoted have nothing at all to do with the Mormon doctrine of eternal marriage. It is only by twisting the meaning of verses so as to far remove them from their original meaning that they can be made to support LDS doctrine.
You said
“As I said before, you want proof, but are only willing to accept it as such if it conforms to your interpretation of the Bible. If one attempts to interpret the Bible in a different way then you simply tell them they misuse the Bible and dismiss everything they say.”
Not my interpretation, just one that I happen to agree with. It is the interpretation of scholars, theologians & countless millions of ordinary mean & women using the accepted rules of interpretation over the last 2000 years, something your Mormon background will not allow you to accept.
Why should I accept the teachings of false prophets whose doctrines are dependant on the manipulation & distortion of Scripture & whose followers ignore all the rules of interpretation in order to defend heresy? That is more than dishonest, it is corrupting Gods word & those who practice such things will one day have to answer for it.
I look forward to hearing from those who accept your invitation.
Old Man
I really don’t care what your reasons are, you have still proven exactly what I said and have shown that any such discussion with you is pointless.
You may not have come up with the interpretation, but you subscribe to it, and thus I say it is yours, speaking in a broad way to indicate the group that you have claimed to be a part of. It is your interpretation. You have proven that you are unwilling to discuss anything unless it conforms to your interpretation, and thus for me to attempt to explain something to you according to our interpretation is pointless because you won’t listen.
When you ask for proof you are not asking for a well thought out idea and explanation as to how a certain verse can be applied to a given doctrine with the understanding that such a presentation has the at least some possibility of persuading you that it is correct.
When you ask for proof you are not asking how others might see this doctrine in the Bible, and how an interpretation that is different than yours might allow for such an understanding.
No, when you ask for proof you are asking that one ignores everything they believe concerning the meaning of the Bible and only address what you believe concerning the Bible. As you have already stated that you do not believe the Bible contains this doctrine I cannot address what you believe and show the doctrine, and thus it is pointless to try.
I am not going to speak regarding this again.
Shem
“You have proven that you are unwilling to discuss anything unless it conforms to your interpretation, and thus for me to attempt to explain something to you according to our interpretation is pointless because you won’t listen.”
The old expression ‘pot calling kettle black’ springs to mind, it works both ways you know.
“When you ask for proof you are not asking for a well thought out idea and explanation as to how a certain verse can be applied to a given doctrine with the understanding that such a presentation has the at least some possibility of persuading you that it is correct.”
Wrong, that’s exactly what I’m asking for & it’s something that you have so far failed to do. You are attempting to overturn in moments the doctrines & beliefs of many centuries & to do that will take a lot more evidence than you have so far provided.
I couldn’t help but notice that you say,
“how a certain verse can be applied to a given doctrine”
That really is the problem with all doctrine that deviates from Christian belief. As with all cults the verse is made to fit the doctrine rather than making the doctrine fit the verse.
“When you ask for proof you are not asking how others might see this doctrine in the Bible, and how an interpretation that is different than yours might allow for such an understanding.”
Actually I do see how such conclusions might be arrived at but seeing how you arrive at them does not make them valid. As I’ve said before, such interpretation can only come either through misunderstanding what is being read or by changing the context of the passage in question. If your interpretation was correct then we wouldn’t even be having this debate because we would all be Mormons. What I have asked of you, in the manner of genuine debate, is present a VIABLE alternative & I’m still waiting for you to do this. Please don’t resort to name calling & insults because you fail to persuade me.