- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My first comment, only half serious: Why not have a glass wall, so that temple holders could be ”in” the temple, while observers could be outside? Second comment; this whole temple marriage exclusion thing bugs me. Basically, ‘eternal marriage’ is a product that the church provides, at the price of tithing, activity and obedience to their set of rules. Truly it is one of the common things that bugs me about organized religious in general; an institution providing a product for a price and acting as the intermediary, the only true one of course, between me and God.
Kind of radical. Sorry.
silentstruggle wrote:My first comment, only half serious: Why not have a glass wall, so that temple holders could be ”in” the temple, while observers could be outside?
Or a veil! Or even a web cam!
Cadence wrote:I personally think everyone should get married civilly first and then go to the temple. If the church is petty enough to make you wait a year then OK wait a year. It really is no big deal. If you are going to the temple because of some perceived peer pressure then you are going for the wrong reason anyway. I sent three children through the temple to get married while I was still TBM. For my family it was no big deal because almost everyone who wanted to attend could, except for younger siblings. But if I did it today I would tell them there is no problem with getting married civilly first. No problem at all. In fact I would recommend it for a couple of reasons. First the wedding day is very exciting and stressful at the same time, do not add the temple experience on top of it. Second I actually think the temple ceremony would have more meaning if you went through after a year and had the day set aside just for that. Then it truly would be a spiritual session and not just a step on the way to the honeymoon.
I am afraid I believe the church uses the temple very much as a control mechanism to keep the saints faithful. The pressure to go to the temple and keep a recommend your whole life is what keeps everyone obeying the rules. Which is OK if you choose to be a participating member, but it still punishes good family members who can not attend.
I agree more members need to start rebelling and just go the civil route first.
In my singles ward getting married in the temple did have a lot of pressure to it when a certain previous Bishop was in charge. He would often speak about the importance of temple marriages. He would tell stories about comparing notes with other Bishop’s on the number of temple marriages VS. Civil marriages and he would always smile and report 0 for Civil and # of Temple marriages.My current Bishop however will gladly count the civil marriages as the overall number of marriages. The large number is just evidence that if you put a bunch of singles in the same place they hook up and get hitched.I had always thought that the one year deal in the States was for legal purposes. After doing some searching on Google it appears that I thought wrong. You could get married in Washington State and then a few months later get married to that same person some place else.I don’t know I’m still single. I haven’t met HER yet so I’m not worried about the situation too much.GREEN[/color] “> [/color] [/size] recent MS podcast on the topic hereQuote:I had always thought that the one year deal in the States was for legal purposes. After doing some searching on Google it appears that I thought wrong. You could get married in Washington State and then a few months later get married to that same person some place else.
There is absolutely no legal reason for the one year waiting period — temple sealing does not equal marriage (though the two are regularly conflated) so there could be no basis for a legal objection. The waiting period is a church policy, nothing more nor less.My wife and I were married in a temple outside of the US where the local government did not recognize any church’s marriage – all “marriages” are civil unions and are only official once you sign in the book at the courthouse. We were married on a Saturday – the courthouse is only open M-F. The SP, bishop etc. made sure we understood we were NOT to go get the civil union on Friday before the wedding, or they wouldn’t let the ceremony go forward – only on the Monday after. So I was “married” in the temple on Saturday and consummated the deal before being “legaly and lawfully wedded” on Monday at the courthouse. So … did my wife and I violate the Law of Chastity that weekend? 😆 Oh, and one more question – what if a couple were sealed in the temple in a country where the only legally valid marriages are performed in a government office, but then that couple never goes and gets the civil union. So, they’re sealed for time and all eternity by the holy priesthood, but they are not legally man and wife according to the government. How would the Church react to that? Having never been “legally and lawfully wedded,” are they violating the LoC? Kumahito, you bring up some very interesting issues. Issues I’ve never heard of before. Thanks,
Mike from Milton.
Yup, therein lie the paradoxes and exceptions that prove we’re dealing in generalities designed to fit best the American model that can be adapted to different cultural and societal restrictions. In other words, it’s policy, not eternal truth or immutable practice.
Kumahito wrote:My wife and I were married in a temple outside of the US where the local government did not recognize any church’s marriage – all “marriages” are civil unions and are only official once you sign in the book at the courthouse. We were married on a Saturday – the courthouse is only open M-F. The SP, bishop etc. made sure we understood we were NOT to go get the civil union on Friday before the wedding, or they wouldn’t let the ceremony go forward – only on the Monday after. So I was “married” in the temple on Saturday and consummated the deal before being “legaly and lawfully wedded” on Monday at the courthouse. So … did my wife and I violate the Law of Chastity that weekend?
😆
LMAO.the church probably declared you legally and lawfully wedded as part of the words the sealer uses, but in fact the church did not have authority to say so in your jurisdiction.
you lived in sin over the weekend…way cool!
That’s a funny situation. The Stake President was so hyper-focused on enforcing one part of church policy that he causes you to violate another important part of church policy. I guess the explanation could be that you were receiving direction from your priesthood leadership, so it’s OK? But yeah … fun little conundrum he created.
Kumahito wrote:So I was “married” in the temple on Saturday and consummated the deal before being “legaly and lawfully wedded” on Monday at the courthouse.
If you and your “spiritual wife” decided to wait until you were legally wedded to honor the strict definition of the law of chastity, they might have held you up as an inspiring example in EFY stories (and other places where sentimental stories trump practicality and reason and true spirituality).
😆 …but the rest of us would not believe you would actually do that.
Heber13 wrote:Kumahito wrote:So I was “married” in the temple on Saturday and consummated the deal before being “legaly and lawfully wedded” on Monday at the courthouse.
If you and your “spiritual wife” decided to wait until you were legally wedded to honor the strict definition of the law of chastity, they might have held you up as an inspiring example in EFY stories (and other places where sentimental stories trump practicality and reason and true spirituality).
😆 …but the rest of us would not believe you would actually do that.I never thought of the EFY thing – I could make a boatload of $$ getting in on that EFY / Youth Conference racket.
:clap: 😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.