- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://www.deseret.com/2021/5/24/22451673/time-only-marriages-end-in-latter-day-saint-temples-only-marriage-sealings-to-continue-lds-mormon ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.deseret.com/2021/5/24/22451673/time-only-marriages-end-in-latter-day-saint-temples-only-marriage-sealings-to-continue-lds-mormon Quote:“Because of the eternal nature of the temple and the work that takes place there, it has been decided that time-only marriages in the temple will no longer be performed,” the First Presidency announced in a letter to general authorities, general officers, Area Seventies, bishops and presidents of stakes, missions, districts, temples and branches.
I think this is somewhat a moot point because the marriages were by definition for time only (although my personal beliefs differ from church policy). I actually see this more as a move by the church to begin getting out of the marriage business because if we’re not doing weddings we’ll never be able to be “forced” to do gay marriages (which I don’t believe is really on anybody’s agenda anyway). I think eventually in the not too distant future the church will only perform sealings and weddings will be done by civil authorities. “Religious liberty” problem solved (and certain GAs will have to find another bandwagon).
I can see your point DJ. The church has had spasms trying to figure out what to do with homosexual members especially now that homosexual marriages are legal throughout the land. Our doctrine does not seem to include any room for homosexual sealings but could there be a situation where a homosexual married couple could seek to have a “time only” wedding solemnized in a temple?
I imagine a homosexual couple that are chaste and possibly who vow to remain virgins even after marriage. They both remain individually temple worthy. What would be the rationale for denying them access to a temple “time-only” wedding?
Or maybe two homosexual individuals of the same gender that have been previously sealed to other spouses that have since died and the two homosexual individuals would like to have a sexless “time only” marriage for companionship in their later years.
Legally, churches in the US have pretty wide latitude to do what might be termed discriminations in other circles. However, the church has been on the losing side of the US Government before and organizations/communities can have extremely long memories. Maybe there are those in high leadership that fear being forced to perform such a time-only marriage.
DarkJedi wrote:
I think eventually in the not too distant future the church will only perform sealings and weddings will be done by civil authorities.
I personally would love this and I believe that it would solve numerous issues. This would divide the wedding as a social event to be celebrated by family and community from the sealing as a religious ceremony that could more safely be shared with only a select few.
Honestly, I didn’t know the church used to perform time only marriages in temples. I thought it was just sealings. I’m confused now. What time period did the church start performing those? DarkJedi wrote:
“Religious liberty” problem solved (and certain GAs will have to find another bandwagon).
I think that particular bandwagon will be with us for a while yet. It’s not a bandwagon that’s unique to the LDS church and it’s the low hanging boogeyman fruit in the USA right now.
I saw the headline and misinterpreted it. I took it to mean that they were no longer doing marriages of any kind in the temple and that they were only doing sealings. It looks like this particular policy only extends to widows that are already sealed to their deceased spouse. They can’t be sealed to a second spouse, so there was an accommodating “time only” ceremony for them in the temple.
Maybe you’re right DJ, maybe it’s a stepping stone to get to my original misinterpretation. The stated reason appears to be to underscore the exclusive and eternal nature of the temple. To further establish the boundary that what goes on inside the temple is eternal.
I’m not sure how to feel about this. Widowers may be sealed to multiple women. Having a “time only” wedding in the temple was pretty much the only concession widows were granted. You can’t be sealed… but it can still be kinda special because the ceremony takes place inside the temple. I get the reasoning but now there’s not even that concession.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
Honestly, I didn’t know the church used to perform time only marriages in temples. I thought it was just sealings. I’m confused now. What time period did the church start performing those?
I think it has been a long standing thing where people have been able to be married for time only in the temple, but as Nibbler says it mostly only applies to widows who can’t be sealed to more than one husband. Apparently the husband must also choose not to be sealed because he could be sealed to more than one wife. I could see why some would choose that option, but then as the full letter states why bother with the temple? Just have the bishop do it. And there’s no reason it couldn’t be done by a civil authority for that matter – there’s nothing special about a bishop’s civil marriage (and policy wise they’re pretty “unspecial”).
Just throwing my own perspective out there, I had decided a while back that should my wife die before I do that I wouldn’t remarry. The idea of eternal marriage is cool, although I don’t really believe in the whole temple/authority thing. And I don’t believe in polygamy. I fully believe others can be together for eternity, temple work done or not.
Thank you. That makes sense then. I just didn’t know that used to be possible in the temple. Ilovechrist77 wrote:
Honestly, I didn’t know the church used to perform time only marriages in temples. I thought it was just sealings. I’m confused now. What time period did the church start performing those?
From the SL tribune articleQuote:These limited vows were meant mainly for widows, who were “sealed” to their deceased first spouses and could not marry again for eternity.
There were sealings for “time only” in the Nauvoo Temple in the 1840s, “so all the way back,” said Latter-day Saint historian Matthew Bowman. “Generally, it was done then according to the notion of levirate marriage: The sealed wife of a dead man would be sealed to somebody else for time.”
This is how pioneer-prophet Brigham Young “was sealed to several of [church founder] Joseph Smith’s plural wives, for instance,” said Bowman, who directs Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California. “So far as I know, it has continued, though less frequently.”
DarkJedi wrote:I actually see this more as a move by the church to begin getting out of the marriage business because if we’re not doing weddings we’ll never be able to be “forced” to do gay marriages (which I don’t believe is really on anybody’s agenda anyway). I think eventually in the not too distant future the church will only perform sealings and weddings will be done by civil authorities. “Religious liberty” problem solved (and certain GAs will have to find another bandwagon).
Duh. That hadn’t even occurred to me. I bet anything that’s the reason why.
I have longed for years for the day that religions perform marriages and governments sanction civil unions with civil benefits. I had no idea they had still be doing time-only marriages in temples, though I see it was only approved under fairly restrictive circumstances. My mother was sealed to her first husband, who wound up dying in WW2 and leaving her as a widow on her 21st birthday, with a 2 month old infant, my half-brother. She met my dad at college after the war and it took several years, but they eventually married. They had a time-only marriage in the Manti temple, which was the temple for their district even though they lived in Missouri. I even remember a story that they traveled to Manti by bus, only to find out to their surprise the town didn’t even have a hotel in 1952. They met a local resident who helped arrange for them to stay in two members’ homes until their ceremony the next day.
I knew of one couple who had a time-only marriage in the temple because they wanted to make it clear that there were no worthiness issues associated with their time-only marriage. The fact that they both were admitted to the temple dispelled any rumours that they were somehow unworthy of a temple marriage. That’s indicative of a much larger cultural problem. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.