Is Temple Marriage A Commandment?

[why me]

I am in a discussion about whether or not temple marriage is a commandment. I believe that it isn't a commandment. Other people have said that it is. What do you think, is temple marriage a commandment?

First, getting married in a chapel ceremony does not seem to break any commandments. Second, getting a chapel wedding does not affect whether one is worthy to take the sacrament or perform church duties.I have used these two arguments to support my claim that temple marriage isn't a commandment. What do you think?

[Calm]

Depends on how you define commandment. If your intent is to be one with the Lord, to align your self with Him, to accept the full blessings of the Atonement to become full members in his Family, then yes it is a commandment. If you just seek salvation and purification, it probably isn't (depends on if the Spirit has witnessed to you that the Will of the Lord is for you to have a temple marriage or not.

I suppose if you really don't want to be married to your spouse through the eternities (I know some who don't) or aren't sure yet, then that would be a good reason not to get a temple marriage.

Read D&C 132, verse 12 and then verses 15 through 17. It describes those not eternally sealed as not abiding in his law.

Also read verses 32 through 35 where it speaks of Abraham being commanded.

Edited October 20, 2011 by calmoriah

[why me]

Depends on how you define commandment. If your intent is to be one with the Lord, to align your self with Him, to accept the full blessings of the Atonement to become full members in his Family, then yes it is a commandment. If you just seek salvation and purification, it probably isn't (depends on if the Spirit has witnessed to you that the Will of the Lord is for you to have a temple marriage or not.

I suppose if you really don't want to be married to your spouse through the eternities (I know some who don't) or aren't sure yet, then that would be a good reason not to get a temple marriage.

Read D&C 132, verse 12 and then verses 15 through 17. It describes those not eternally sealed as not abiding in his law.

Also read verses 32 through 35 where it speaks of Abraham being commanded.

In the discussion, there isn't any grey. I said that it wasn't a commandment and the others said that it was. It seems that temple marriage isn't a traditional commandment that when broken a confession is necessary. Nor does it prevent someone of living a full lds life with service, partaking of the sacrament and callings. There are many marriages in the church to non lds and the lds involved in this marriage face no disfellowshipment or hostility from members. It is acceptable.

So, it was my opinion to state that Temple marriage is a commandment was misleading. It will be interesting to hear what others say about it on the forum. Thanks for the response.

[Calm]

You are comparing two different types of commandments, the "thou shalt not" and the "thou shalt". You encounter church discipline with the "nots", blessings, including some callings, are associated with the "shalt". For example, no one is excommunicated for not paying tithing, but they don't have access to the blessings associated with this "shalt". If one does not choose to abide in celestial law in this lifetime, then one lacks the blessings the sealing covenant can bring and inhibits their personal spiritual progression.

And if one has covenanted with the Lord to obey one of the "shalts", then it does become a sin to the Lord if we break that covenant; we can lose privileges of attending the temple, advancement in the Priesthood, serving in certain callings, etc.

Eternal marriage is a law, like all of God's laws if we abide in it, we receive blessings; if we don't, we don't. You can call it a commandment or not, but that is how all commandments function so I don't see a difference.

Edited October 20, 2011 by calmoriah

[CV75]

What do you think, is temple marriage a commandment?

I would say yes, in that all the children of God must follow the pattern of Adam and Eve in order to receive exaltation.

[LeSellers]

There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessing are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Obeying "positive" commandments is the way to obtain blessings. If one does not want the blessing, he is free to ignore the law on which that blessing is predicated. In which case, his blessing is "nothing". Temple marriage is a positive commandment.

"Negative" commandments also exist, and their infractions carry, rather than blessings, per se, punishments. One may chose to disobey these commandments, too, but when doing so, the result is not "nothing", it is a negative "something".

There also exist "mixed" commandments, which have both positive and negative elements. Each part has its own blessing or punishment attached, although separating them may not be trivial; such, for instance, the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[why me]

You are comparing two different types of commandments, the "thou shalt not" and the "thou shalt". You encounter church discipline with the "nots", blessings, including some callings, are associated with the "shalt". For example, no one is excommunicated for not paying tithing, but they don't have access to the blessings associated with this "shalt". If one does not choose to abide in celestial law in this lifetime, then one lacks the blessings the sealing covenant can bring and inhibits their personal spiritual progression.

And if one has covenanted with the Lord to obey one of the "shalts", then it does become a sin to the Lord if we break that covenant; we can lose privileges of attending the temple, advancement in the Priesthood, serving in certain callings, etc.

Eternal marriage is a law, like all of God's laws if we abide in it, we receive blessings; if we don't, we don't. You can call it a commandment or not, but that is how all commandments function so I don't see a difference.

However, there are many women who have married outside the church. I don't believe that they are discriminated against for marrying outside the temple nor is it mentioned to them that they have broken any commandments and I think that that was my point on a different board. Another problem I see at times is the blurring between counsel and commandments. For me, being married outside the temple does not limited one's progression in the church. One can have a full life in the lds church and be treated as an equal.

[Calm]

I believe it at least limits it for men in that they can't be called to certain positions. I don't know if it is true for women, but I have strong doubts that a woman married to a nonmember will be called to hold any of the higher female offices, even if those are more support positions than 'line' simply due to the recognition of the stress on the marriage if for no other reason. And a mixed marriage prevents a woman or a man from going on a mission.

Single men over a certain age cannot serve in the temple or go on a mission. I don't know whether or not an mixed marriage husband member can serve in the temple....though they can attend.

There are laws you can break, there are others you can break and fulfill, and others you can only fulfill. Suggesting that only those that are laws that should be called commandments misses the point of what a commandment is, IMO.

[Calm]

The FHE lists the temple as a commandment: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=27d7a41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

I would say that temple marriage is a commandment in the sense that you will not be punished if you do not fulfill this commandment, but you will not be able to achieve exaltation and the full blessings associated with an eternal family any other way.

Christ said the first two commandments are to love God and love one another. Now if you choose not to love others, as long as you do not hurt or sin against them, you will not be punished, but you will certainly not get the blessings and it can be described as breaking the commandment. Thus simply because one does not get punished for not doing one of God's laws doesn't imply that such a law is not a commandment.

Edited October 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Ignoring "positive" commandments is the way to obtain blessings.

Are you sure?

[why me]

I would say yes, in that all the children of God must follow the pattern of Adam and Eve in order to receive exaltation.

But we can not say to a person who is getting married in the chapel that they are breaking a commandment. Would you say this to your daughter or son? Getting married in the chapel is not breaking a commandment when one is marrying a non-member or one who is not worthy to be married in the temple. Is it?

[why me]

Thank you so far for all the comments!

Edited October 21, 2011 by why me

[LeSellers]

But we can not say to a person who is getting married in the chapel that they are breaking a commandment. Would you say this to your daughter or son?

Yes, and it's not hypothetical: I did.

Getting married in the chapel is not breaking a commandment when one is marrying a non-member or one who is not worthy to be married in the temple. Is it?

Yes, one who is marrying outside the Temple is breaking a commandment. He will not receive the blessings associated with a Temple sealing as a consequence of his rebellion. He has limited himself to the lesser, rather than qualifying for the greater.

Just because one is not excommunicated for breaking this commandment, no one is justified in refusing to accept it as a commandment. See calmoriah's post #4 and my post #6

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Are you sure?

Thanks; good eye. (Offending message edited.)

Obviously, I changed my thought and failed to change the words.

Thanks again.

Lehi

[CV75]

But we can not say to a person who is getting married in the chapel that they are breaking a commandment. Would you say this to your daughter or son? Getting married in the chapel is not breaking a commandment when one is marrying a non-member or one who is not worthy to be married in the temple. Is it?

I think the Lord’s will is that couples are sealed, and that it is a commandment for a higher kingdom. But until the couple together shares the testimony and opportunity to be sealed, or interest in that higher kingdom, it is not a commandment they can be expected to relate to or keep.

If parents raised their children to want that kingdom and be married in the temple, they could be disappointed in a chapel wedding, which can create more hardship and difficulty for the couple when expressed in accusatory or condemning ways.

So I would try to look at the positive side of it--that if the couple is not eligible to marry in the temple, that marrying by any other authority is at least not “living in sin” and there is hope that they will come around to enjoy the benefits of being sealed. This way they can maintain good relationships, which is a fundamental commandment to keep and the first step in realizing the eventual blessings of being sealed, whenever that is to occur.

[frankenstein]

Temple Sealing is not a Commandment. But as other have pointed out, Blessings are tied to honoring Temple Sealing and Covenants.

LDS people seem prone to "create" commandments or at least "create" things they treat as commandments.

Is there an Official Statement from the Church stating that every member MUST/SHALL - or whatever creative synonym a person wants to use - be sealed in the Temple.

Even the FHE list posted does not specify it is a commandment.

[jo1952]

I would say that in the most strict use of the word commandment, that no, a Temple marriage is not a commandment. It seems like there is a talk in almost every conference which concerns members who, for some reason or another which they have had no control over, who are unable to be sealed in the Temple, will still have the opportunity to have a Temple marriage after this physical life. For others, it is a "choice" not to marry in the Temple. If anything, I would call a Temple Marriage an ordinance (as indeed it is) and/or covenant. Without this ordinance one cannot attain the highest Glory of Heaven....Eternal Life. God is not going to force anyone into making a commitment/covenant they either do not want or are not ready to make. Therefore, by choosing NOT to be sealed, they have broken no commandments OR covenants.

As far as those who marry a non-member, or members who marry outside the Temple, they are not breaking any commandments. After all, it is better that they get married in a civil ceremony than just live together without a marriage license. To not marry, but live together, would be breaking a commandment. Also, should any of these individuals die before they DO have a Temple Sealing, their work is still done posthumously for them. Even then, the individual is not required to accept the work that has been done for them. Father wants us to be happy in the eternities. I have no reason to doubt (even though I wouldn't be able to relate to it) that there are individuals who would be happier not being in an eternal marriage....it is their choice; not God's. God isn't going to take away their free agency and force them to do something they don't want to do. In fact, you could say that if God DID do that, then He is breaking one of His own rules.

BTW, if your discussion has been with a non-LDS individual, I know that these concepts can be difficult for them to get their head around. I have found that they think in "black and white"---that there is no room for "grey" when it comes to trying to understand LDS beliefs. They do not realize that our beliefs and our understandings are not all fixed in absolute knowledge; though for some reason, they expect them to be.

Regards,

jo

[Cobalt-70]

According to Joseph Smith, temple marriage is not an absolute requirement for exaltation. In his King Follett sermon, he said that those who died as children (who obviously had not been married) would rule on heavenly thrones as sexually-immature children:

"But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

Thus, apparently not everyone who rules on a heavenly throne in the Celestial Kingdom is a temple-married couple or a group of polygamous adults.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am in a discussion about whether or not temple marriage is a commandment. I believe that it isn't a commandment. Other people have said that it is. What do you think, is temple marriage a commandment?

I guess nothing can be a commandment if one does not care were one ends up.

First, getting married in a chapel ceremony does not seem to break any commandments. Second, getting a chapel wedding does not affect whether one is worthy to take the sacrament or perform church duties.I have used these two arguments to support my claim that temple marriage isn't a commandment. What do you think?

In one sense you are correct. You can do all of those things. However if I do break some of the commandments I can still partake of the sacrament. After all that is the purpose of the sacrament is to be forgiven of our sins.

I think the issue here is trying to find the end game. I would say that if one wishes to receive all the Father has then it is a commandment. If one does not wish that, then by all means it is not a commandment.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

According to Joseph Smith, temple marriage is not an absolute requirement for exaltation. In his King Follett sermon, he said that those who died as children (who obviously had not been married) would rule on heavenly thrones as sexually-immature children:

"But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

Thus, apparently not everyone who rules on a heavenly throne in the Celestial Kingdom is a temple-married couple or a group of polygamous adults.

This quote does not say that they received all the Father has and became Gods. It does not even address that it does not even say they are exalted.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jo1952]

According to Joseph Smith, temple marriage is not an absolute requirement for exaltation. In his King Follett sermon, he said that those who died as children (who obviously had not been married) would rule on heavenly thrones as sexually-immature children:

"But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

Thus, apparently not everyone who rules on a heavenly throne in the Celestial Kingdom is a temple-married couple or a group of polygamous adults.

There are levels of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom. IIRC, the New and Everlasting Covenant of a Temple Marriage which has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, is a union which allows procreation.

Also, isn't there also something written by Joseph Smith wherein either during the Millenium or at some point in the eternities, where parents are able to raise their children who died before the age of accountability? If this is so, and if these are the age line of the children reigning on thrones, I wonder if their reign is then only temporary until they have been raised to adulthood stature. Does anybody have any further information they can share about this?

Regards,

jo

[Cobalt-70]

This quote does not say that they received all the Father has and became Gods. It does not even address that it does not even say they are exalted.

The only thing missing would be that they can't have children. But they still get "throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion." That is an exaltation. It seems only fair that gays and lesbians would get similar thrones, even though they don't get married in the temple.

[Cobalt-70]

There are levels of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom. IIRC, the New and Everlasting Covenant of a Temple Marriage which has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, is a union which allows procreation.

Also, isn't there also something written by Joseph Smith wherein either during the Millenium or at some point in the eternities, where parents are able to raise their children who died before the age of accountability? If this is so, and if these are the age line of the children reigning on thrones, I wonder if their reign is then only temporary until they have been raised to adulthood stature. Does anybody have any further information they can share about this?

Joseph Smith specifically said that these children will never reach adult stature. Of course, if you are a baby god, who is to say you can't change the form of your own body?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith specifically said that these children will never reach adult stature.

CFR

As I recall the quote (only one I know of), he said that they would be resurrected with the same body (size, development, etc.) as they had attained when they died, but that their mothers would have the privilege of nurturing them until their bodies grew to meet their full stature. I gave the eulogy for a child who'd died of SIDS (whatever that means), and I researched this thoroughly.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[CV75]

According to Joseph Smith, temple marriage is not an absolute requirement for exaltation. In his King Follett sermon, he said that those who died as children (who obviously had not been married) would rule on heavenly thrones as sexually-immature children:

"But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

Thus, apparently not everyone who rules on a heavenly throne in the Celestial Kingdom is a temple-married couple or a group of polygamous adults.

This sermon (whichever version is being cited) is not as reliable a source as other guidance that we have about the necessity of temple marriage (the new and everlasting covenant sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise) for exaltation, the crowning glory of which is the continuation of the seeds forever and ever (D&C 132:19).

The paragraph cited does not address exaltation as D&C 132 does, but I do see how a few valid ideas about the afterlife of children seem to be confused and conflated with each other, and I understand that the manner in which the versions of the discourse were compiled could easily lead to mistakes.