Why Temple Marriage

[stemelbow]

My only issue with the civil marriage first thing is where the parents feel like their kids owe them a certain kind of wedding and that their feelings should be more important than the bride and grooms on the issue.

For the most part, I'd imagine, brides and grooms don't want their parents/family to miss out. Its a tough choice on them too. For my part, I don't think i remember a temple sealing I've attended in which part of the family was not left out. Make it up in other ways, I suppose.

[ElfLord]

You're not the only one.

I am an active, temple-attending LDS father and the policy appalls me as well.

It is senselessly cruel, it protects nothing, and exists only to punish and hurt.

It generates massive anger and animosity from nonmembers, and causes nothing but pain to faithful members caught in the middle of it.

It ugly, shameful, and needs to be changed.

I was a pretty ardent believer in the policy myself... however... after reading the scriptures a little more. Im beginning to lean more your way.

Romans 14 comes into play here big time.

So does Peters Table cloth dream...

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

We are all cleansed in the Blood of Christ, even the unbeleiver so who are we to exact God's vengance and Judge our brothers?

I know that Paul was nearly strung from the temple precipice for supposedly taking Greeks into the temple at Jerusalem and the temple was closed up so it could be rededicated and cleansed.

Do we really need to be so letter-of-the-law-iacs as the Jews were? The policy sounds more and more Pharasee-ish to me.

If Christ has cleansed even the most vial sinner (I'm not invoking Gowdwins law here) even Hitler, and Hitler can be pothsumously baptized in the temple. Who are we to keep people away from God, who's sins are no where near as severe. I mean what better missionary tool than to show people the Baptismal font and read 1 kings! We could turn the temple into more than just a place were we Go to do work for the dead... we'd be bringing more of the living there as well.

The policies in the church that tend to divide need to be eliminated. Just like the priesthood ban and other things. I mean if J. Golden Kimball can get a temple recommends and the Original Salt Lake temple can have Spitoons...

I also don't think the argument can be made that the policy is in place to protect the signs and tokens done during the ceremony. Is it not said "we want all to receive it"?

[Mordecai]

I dunno, perhaps you didn't want the non LDS family mebers (Moms and Dads etc) of the bride and and/or groom to be able to support, witness, or be there at the time when the two make vows and become one in the body of our Lord Christ.

This is pretty telling as far as the symbolism of the temple. You become one with the members of the Church, in part by leaving the culture of the gentiles, despite that being scary.

[TNBu]

Ceeboo:

In my own Temple wedding there were 5 people including us. None were related to us.

I doubt many nonLDS would understand let alone appreciate the Temple Ceremony. There really is no counterpart. Everyone is dressed in the same color(white)No music, no flowers, no walking down the aisle, no giving away the bribe, very limited seating capacity, just a very short ceremony(lasting less than 5 minutes). The couple looks into two opposing mirrors. Then it is all over and everyone leaves.

They might not understand or appreciate the things you understand and appreciate, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to them, or that they would want to be there any less. I don't understand some cultural specifics of a number of weddings I've been too (Indian, Jewish, Catholic) but being there was important to me nonetheless-- especially because of how important I knew it was to my friends. I imagine if it were my own child it would be infinitely more important.

My husband and I 'eloped' to the DC temple and got married without any of our friends and family there because we could not bear to include only the "temple worthy" family members to the exclusion of our closest loved ones-- including my grandparents, father, sister and best friend. My LDS in-laws were devastated at not being included, but I highly doubt they felt it any more deeply than my non-member and inactive loved ones. I can't dismiss their feelings because they wouldn't have understood it. They understand enough.

As for the original topic-- I suppose that it is part of a person's religious beliefs and accords with their faith are the best reasons for being married in the temple. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

[Ceeboo]

I was disappointed in the passive/aggressive way that you chose to make your feelings about the temple known, not the feelings themselves.

It's such a waste of communication.

My "passive/agressive feelings about the temple"?

As to your suggestion that it's such a waste of communication, perhaps you are entirely right.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Garden Girl]

Hey USU78,

Why Temple Marriage?

I dunno, perhaps you didn't want the non LDS family mebers (Moms and Dads etc) of the bride and and/or groom to be able to support, witness, or be there at the time when the two make vows and become one in the body of our Lord Christ.

Maybe?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Somehow this seems uncharacteristic of you, Ceeboo...

Something needs to change, badly.

And I don't mean we should let nonmembers into the ceremony.

You know how easily this tragic problem could be fixed, without compromising the sacredness or spirit of the ordinance.

Sorry, but I don't see the "tragic" problem... I'm not even going to read through the rest of this thread because I can see it will, yet again, go over the same ground that has been discussed again and again...

AND, I will not go through pointing out yet again that most LDS now include ring exchanges with the reception... and even in the case of the last two receptions I've attended, there was a entrance of bridesmaids/groomsmen down an "aisle" created by placement of tables, followed by the bride in full bridal dress/veil being escorted down the aisle by her father to an arbor where rings were exchanged... followed by the reception line which included the parents and the participants all greeting guests as they went through the line. There were "toasts" to the bride/groom, shared memories of each, etc etc. Now if parents can't live with that, that's their problem. In each of these cases, the LDS family tried to accommodate the non-LDS family members while still respecting the faith of the bride/groom.

GG

[RickChown]

When did the early church members get married in temples?

When did ANYONE ever get married in a Israelite/Jewish temple?

How is this a restored ordinance if it never existed?

[Ceeboo]

Somehow this seems uncharacteristic of you, Ceeboo...

GG

Hey GG,

Yes, my contributions of late do seem to be seasoned with a tone of frustration/anger. (To be honest, I don't know the reason/reasons for this)

My apologies to all (Bluebell, USU78, ERMD certainly included)

Perhaps a little Ceeboo pause/reflection is in order.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Jeff K.]

I work in the temple.

It is the Lord's house. Not ours. It is the site where ordinances of supreme to any other in the is world take place. Those ordinances are offered to us through the atonement, the most painful, powerful, and exceptional moment in known existence.

Do we accomodate ourselves to those ordinances, or should we make the church accomodatie itself to our wants?

Is waiting a year destructive and painful? Or is the the ordinance worth the wait? if it is, then I would suggest that perhaps the temple is not the place were those with ill will and ill feeling towards the church should go?

I am more of the mind that the temple and the opportunity to serve in it should be approached with humble meekness.

Some of us want the temple to reflect the world as we see the world. We want it to be more like the world. Ring cermonies, receptions, perhaps change the waiting area into a reception hall? What could be the harm of that?

The temple stands apart from the world for a reason. It exists beyond the constraints of society dictating its desires and whims. I will leave it up to the prophet and apostles to let us know what the Lord wants for His house. I do not believe the ephemeral and momentary desires of those who call the temple a tragedy are necessarily the ones we should be listening to.

[Mordecai]

When did the early church members get married in temples?

When did ANYONE ever get married in a Israelite/Jewish temple?

How is this a restored ordinance if it never existed?

I believe the Gospel of Philip discusses temple sealings. Relatively obscure document, yes, but it's ancient and Jewish.

[Sleeper Cell]

I agree, except the church and mormon culture directly and indirectly discourages this.

And an ugly formal punishment exists (a mandatory year wait) for any couple who puts family before faith.

Therein lies the problem: a rule that punishes otherwise faithful LDS couples who choose not to exclude their nonmormon family members.

A one year wait is a

[RickChown]

I believe the Gospel of Philip discusses temple sealings. Relatively obscure document, yes, but it's ancient and Jewish.

HUH? Gospel of Phillip?

That's all you got?

You need to do better than that

When was a MARRIAGE ever performed in those temples?

[thesometimesaint]

TNBu:

My wife and I eloped with everyone knowing. I know the feelings we had about both sets of relatives not being able to attend. We just made sure to treat our parents with even more respect and gratitude. 38 years and three Grandkids, and 5 Great Grands later it seems to have worked out well for us.

[LeSellers]

When was a MARRIAGE ever performed in those temples?

I'll gladly answer your question if you'll answer mine:

What was the purpose of the second story in Solomon's Temple?

2. Now, therefore, the king laid the foundations of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time; these were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and a sure foundation for that superstructure which was to be erected over it; they were to be so strong, in order to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments, whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits. He also built round about the temple thirty small rooms, which might include the whole temple, by their closeness one to another, and by their number and outward position round it. He also made passages through them, that they might come into on through another. Every one of these rooms had five cubits in breadth, and the same in length, but in height twenty. Above these there were other rooms, and others above them, equal, both in their measures and number; so that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house; for the upper part had no buildings about it. The roof that was over the house was of cedar; and truly every one of these rooms had a roof of their own, that was not connected with the other rooms; but for the other parts, there was a covered roof common to them all, and built with very long beams, that passed through the rest, and rough the whole building, that so the middle walls, being strengthened by the same beams of timber, might be thereby made firmer: but as for that part of the roof that was under the beams, it was made of the same materials, and was all made smooth, and had ornaments proper for roofs, and plates of gold nailed upon them. And as he enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them; so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered, by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them, Now the whole structure of the temple was made with great skill of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture; but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural, than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them. The king also had a fine contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple, and that was by steps in the thickness of its wall; for it had no large door on the east end, as the lower house had, but the entrances were by the sides, through very small doors. He also overlaid the temple, both within and without, with boards of cedar, that were kept close together by thick chains, so that this contrivance was in the nature of a support and a strength to the building.

This is not unique to Josephus. We read it in the Bible, too, although not in this level of detail (which kinda indicates that there is something missing in the Bible, n'est-ce pas?).

9 And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

So, if you can tell us for certain what they did upstairs in the Temple, I'll answer your question.

But I have no anxiety about it, since you don't know.

Lehi

[RickChown]

I'll gladly answer your question if you'll answer mine:

What was the purpose of the second story in Solomon's Temple?

This is not unique to Josephus. We read it in the Bible, too, although not in this level of detail (which kinda indicates that there is something missing in the Bible, n'est-ce pas?).

So, if you can tell us for certain what they did upstairs in the Temple, I'll answer your question.

But I have no anxiety about it, since you don't know.

Lehi

I see you have no answer so you try to divert attention away from the question!

How is the Mormon temple marriage a restoration of the early Church practices?

When was a Marriage performed in the early church temple?

Just because you don't like my question, doesn't mean that I have to answer your question before you will answer mine. Nice try though

It's an old trick.

[bluebell]

I see you have no answer so you try to divert attention away from the question!

How is the Mormon temple marriage a restoration of the early Church practices?

When was a Marriage performed in the early church temple?

Just because you don't like my question, doesn't mean that I have to answer your question before you will answer mine. Nice try though

It's an old trick.

Peter was given the power to seal on earth and in heaven, the LDS temple marriage is an example of the use of that sealing power.

[LeSellers]

I see you have no answer so you try to divert attention away from the question!

I do have an answer. But before I offer it, I want to assure myself of the nature of the beast before whom I may be casting pearls.

You claim (by implication) that there were no marriages in Temples either in the early Church

or among the Jews. I say there is no way you can know that if you do not know what happened in the Temple, and you do not, at least I infer it from two facts:

• I have never, in many years of asking the question, seen a decent answer by anyone on your side of the aisle.
• You didn't even try to present one.

How is the Mormon temple marriage a restoration of the early Church practices?

We believe "the early Church" included Adam and Eve; God Himself was their Priest. We can start in the Garden of Eden.

When was a Marriage performed in the early church temple?

That's a question for later, once you have proven yourself to be an honest inquirer. To this point, there is little evidence to support the notion.

Just because you don't like my question, doesn't mean that I have to answer your question before you will answer mine.

I have no problem with your question. The problem lies with you.

Nice try though

It's an old trick.

Old tricks are old because they work. If they didn't, no one would use them.

But "trick" implies something you have yet to demonstrate: that I have no answer. You assume I have none, and you are making (poor quality) hay of your assumption.

No one here has any obligation to respond to your query. If you want an answer, at least from me, you'll have to address my concern first.

You see, double standards are abhorrent. You assume there is no evidence for eternal marriages (which, btw, need not be done in a Temple

[Mordecai]

HUH? Gospel of Phillip?

That's all you got?

You need to do better than that

When was a MARRIAGE ever performed in those temples?

It's a sealing, which is basically synonymous. Calm down, by the way. What's your problem? You seem terribly offended or put off.

[USU78]

Hey GG,

Yes, my contributions of late do seem to be seasoned with a tone of frustration/anger. (To be honest, I don't know the reason/reasons for this)

My apologies to all (Bluebell, USU78, ERMD certainly included)

Perhaps a little Ceeboo pause/reflection is in order.

Don't go changin' to try and please me . . .

[Ceeboo]

Don't go changin' to try and please me . . .

I need to know that you will always be,

The same old someone that I knew

What will it take till you belieeeeeeeeve in me,

The way that I believe in you?

I said I LOVE YOU USU78, and that's FOREVER!

Peace,

Ceeboo