- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here’s an interesting question shared by a friend. Someone in authority told her that the LDS version of keeping the law of chastity means keeping it until temple marriage. So people who keep the law of chastity until a civil marriage haven’t really been chaste due to not being married in the temple first? Do we believe people of other faiths also don’t keep the law of chastity since of course they aren’t married in the temple. Shouldn’t we encourage being chaste until marriage? Isn’t that a good thing for society? If we negate it this way, aren’t we talking out of both sides of our mouth? Whoever told your friend that is wrong – 100%, dead wrong. Period. Full stop. I don’t care what position of authority was held. It’s wrong. Just to add some detail, that shouldn’t be necessary, but . . .
Fwiw:
1) I’ve never heard that said by anyone in my lifetime – and I’ve known some extremely conservative members.
2) We baptize people who are married civilly and, we assume, having sex. There is no “repentance” necessary as part of the process to be baptized – and it is not asked in any way in the baptismal interview. In fact, if a couple who are having sex while living together and unmarried want to be baptized, all they have to do is get married civilly in order to be baptized – and they don’t have to be celibate between their marriage and their baptism. They can be having sex right up to their marriage and then be baptized at any time thereafter. In practical terms, getting married civilly is considered to be repentance enough.
3) The temple wording mentions ONLY a spouse to whom one is “legally and lawfully married”. It says nothing about being “sealed”.
4) It’s wrong on SO many levels that I’ll stop now. Seriously, I would tell your friend that it’s just wrong on so many levels that it’s not worth trying to list them all. If your friend mentions the “authority” of the person, tell her someone else “in authority” said the other “authority” is wrong. That has a long tradition in our history.
😆 It is as correct as the statement Quote:Kissing your spouse prior to kissing them over the temple alter is breaking the law of chastity.
(which is to say, it is as incorrect as the above statement)
So, so wrong. To the point that I can’t even imagine where they got it from. Afterall, Obviously it’s not church doctrine or policy. Usually when I hear something really strange like that attributed to what someone told someone else, I just assume miscommunication.
Unfortunately, it’s been confirmed. It was said. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but for those who choose a civil marriage, even if marrying someone not of our faith, I choose to honor and respect their marriage. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions – but sometimes that entitlement causes stupid things to be opined. Agency is wonderful, even though the result sometimes sucks. I know nothing else about the person who said it. He or she might be spot-on about the vast majority of things, or this might be representative of a fundamentally twisted view in other ways. I have no way to know that, and I refuse to speculate one way or the other. regardless, this particular statement is not doctrinal (no matter how loosely that word is defined); it doesn’t represent the teachings of the Global Church Leadership; it is highly offensive and destructive in nature; etc.
If it had been said to me, I would have gone to the “authority” at the next step up and expressed my concern – but I realize lots of members aren’t comfortable doing that. If that’s the case in this situation, all I can recommend is to brush it off and counter it in whatever way possible privately.
Joseph and Emma would have been guilty of not living the Law of Chastity under that definition, because they eloped. They had been married and had several kids before they were sealed in Nauvoo. Such a definition seems a bit silly. Ya, Joseph might not be the best prophet to prop up as the poster child for Chastity, in any definition of the word. Just sayin. afterall wrote:Someone in authority told her that the LDS version of keeping the law of chastity means keeping it until temple marriage.
“someone in authority”… i cannot tell you how much this happens. opinions are like armpits. everyone has a couple, and most stink. when a human being who happens to be “someone in authority” expresses an opinion, LDS are trained to believe it must be the word of god, because of section 1 and the 14F. this is the core problem in the church today — these stupid, harmful opinions have spread like wildfire because “someone in authority” said something them, and the saints believe.the entire problem jesus had with the rabbinical jews had to do with the hypocrisy of their fencebuilding around the law. that is what saying “only temple marriage allows you to fully comply with the law of chastity” is trying to do. (which probably was the context of the OP.) god told JS that the problem with the then religions was that “they teach for doctrine the commandments of men”. this is exactly what “someone in authority” was doing here.
wrong is wrong. bs is bs. i’d ignore any “someone in authority” comment that isn’t fully in harmony with the revealed canon until i see it as scripture, in the current policy manual, or pronounced formally as doctrine in GC with a sustaining vote. and even then i am obliged to seek my own testimony of it.
Yep, the person who commits fornication before marriage, repents, and then gets married civilly is keeping the law of chastity in my view. I wish I had such a powerful BS filter in the early days of my life in the Church. I can spot lots of false doctrine and ideas in an instant now. Never used to be able to. Oh the downside of having a good heart at the time. I believed everything — even stuff like this outrageous statement. Sounds to me like a comment that may have come from a country where they have to have a civil marriage before going to the temple to be sealed. If the two are happening within days I can imagine this type of suggestion. Yeah, I can imagine it – but I still would tell the person to take a flying leap, because I’d be having sex between the civil marriage and the temple sealing. :thumbup: It’s a “made in the USA” comment 😆 Old-Timer wrote:
2) We baptize people who are married civilly and, we assume, having sex. There is no “repentance” necessary as part of the process to be baptized – and it is not asked in any way in the baptismal interview. In fact, if a couple who are having sex while living together and unmarried want to be baptized, all they have to do is get married civilly in order to be baptized – and they don’t have to be celibate between their marriage and their baptism. They can be having sex right up to their marriage and then be baptized at any time thereafter. In practical terms, getting married civilly is considered to be repentance enough.
Well dang it, I wish I’d known that on my mission so I wouldn’t have felt like I had to ask couples if they had abstained before getting married civilly as part of the baptism interview.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.