Is Temple Marriage A Commandment?

[Cobalt-70]

CFR

Look a few posts back at the quotation from the King Follett discourse, particularly the phrase "with not one cubit added to their stature."

[Cobalt-70]

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.

You were probably quoting Joseph F. Smith, who was only quoting part of Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse, but omitting what Smith said in the next sentence. Joseph Smith said that "not one cubit" would be "added to their stature" as they reign upon their eternal thrones and dominions.

Joseph F. only had access to an incomplete transcription of the sermon which did not include the transcriptions by Wilford Woodruff. Woodruff's transcription was the most complete of the four transcriptions as far as coverage is concerned. Yet the Bullock transcript, the most word-for-word accurate transcription, still says that children will remain as children through the eternities: "Children dwell & exercise power in the same form as they laid them down." It's just that Bullock missed the next sentence that reiterated that point more clearly and eloquently. Bullock, who was using a quill pen and missed sentences periodically, apparently was dipping his pen in the ink while Woodruff recorded the next sentence which removed all doubt about his meaning. Joseph F. Smith misread and misinterpreted what was recorded in the Bullock version.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Deborah]

Look a few posts back at the quotation from the King Follett discourse, particularly the phrase "with not one cubit added to their stature."

Lehi is correct in his interpretation of this. They are resurrected as children to be raised by righteous parents until they reach full maturity at which time their full stature will be reached.

Furthermore we don't know how much of the KFD was recorded correctly.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Deborah

[Deborah]

D&C 63:

50 And he that liveth when the Lord shall come, and hath kept the faith, blessed is he; nevertheless, it is appointed to him to die at the age of man.

51 Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Because they will receive a celestial inheritance, they will come forth in the first resurrection. President Joseph F. Smith said: “Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: ‘You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.’ There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 455–56.)

[LeSellers]

Look a few posts back at the quotation from the King Follett discourse, particularly the phrase "with not one cubit added to their stature."

Which meant they will not change in the grave.

Unfortunately, I don't have my library available right now, but the rest of the quote is the important part, where Joseph said that their mothers would raise them to their full stature. (Besides, a cubit (18") is quite a bit. A child reaches 50% of his full, adult height by the times he's two years old We're actually born at about 15% of that height, anyway), so not growing a cubit isn't all that limiting.

Lehi

[jo1952]

D&C 63:

50 And he that liveth when the Lord shall come, and hath kept the faith, blessed is he; nevertheless, it is appointed to him to die at the age of man.

51 Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Because they will receive a celestial inheritance, they will come forth in the first resurrection. President Joseph F. Smith said: “Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: ‘You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.’ There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 455–56.)

Hi Deborah,

Don't know for sure if you are aware that the verses in D&C 63 which you used are referring to individuals, including children, who are alive when Christ comes; not individuals (including children) who have already died. Thus, these verses would not be in support of anything from the KFD or the message you referenced from President Joseph F. Smith.

However, the quote you provided from President Joseph F. Smith is one that I was trying to remember when I asked for help in my earlier post. I thought that we had been taught that children who died would/could be raised by their parents after they were resurrected. This is an important point to me, as I lost my first born (a son) on the day he was born (some..cough...30 something years ago). No one told me about this possibility until fairly recently. So, thank you!!

Best regards,

jo

[Deborah]

Don't know for sure if you are aware that the verses in D&C 63 which you used are referring to individuals, including children, who are alive when Christ comes; not individuals (including children) who have already died. Thus, these verses would not be in support of anything from the KFD or the message you referenced from President Joseph F. Smith.

Yes, but the principle applies and most people who discuss this think that these resurrected children will be raised by their parents in the Millennium.

[Cobalt-70]

Lehi is correct in his interpretation of this. They are resurrected as children to be raised by righteous parents until they reach full maturity at which time their full stature will be reached.

Furthermore we don't know how much of the KFD was recorded correctly.

The four transcriptions of the King Follett sermon are widely regarded as reliable, considering that they are remarkably consistent with each other. They don't have the complete sermon, but the parts they do have are very well recorded. Stan Larson has the best study of the reliability of the sermon in his BYU Studies article, vol. 18, no. 2. Since this sermon was his last major one, it represents the ultimate expression of his evolving theology. To the extent what he said may differ from what he said before, his thoughts in the King Follett sermon represent a longer period of reflection and inspiration.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Which meant they will not change in the grave.

I don't think so. In the previous sentence, Smith said that these children would spend eternity reigning on thrones " in the same form just as you laid them down."

[Cobalt-70]

However, the quote you provided from President Joseph F. Smith is one that I was trying to remember when I asked for help in my earlier post. I thought that we had been taught that children who died would/could be raised by their parents after they were resurrected. This is an important point to me, as I lost my first born (a son) on the day he was born (some..cough...30 something years ago). No one told me about this possibility until fairly recently. So, thank you!!

It is hard to know how reliable Joseph F. Smith's statement was. Joseph F. was only five years old when Joseph Smith died, so anything he said about what Joseph Smith said would be second or third-hand. It is also likely that it would have been said prior to the King Follett sermon, which represented his latest thinking before he died. (That doesn't necessarily mean that he was right, only that this is what he thought.)

I have also wondered why it would be necessary for a parent to raise a resurrected child. That implies that people are resurrected with a second "veil" that causes them to forget their life as a spirit, and I'm not sure what the implications of that would be.

[BCSpace]

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?

It is a commandment because there is a consequence for not doing it; not inheriting eternal life.

First, getting married in a chapel ceremony does not seem to break any commandments.

If done in lieu of a temple marriage, it is breaking a commandment.

[thesometimesaint]

cobalt-70:

The Church has a long established method for determining its doctrine. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses KFD doesn't meet the criteria for doctrine.

[why me]

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.

Thanks. You gave a very human centered response. I think that there are many women who marry outside the church for various of reasons and I think that it would be terrible to tell these women that they are breaking a commandment. Such a statement would certainly put a screw in the ceremony. Also, for the members who are extremely serious about temple marriage being a commandment will need to be careful that they are not judgemental of the people being married in the chapel.

From my take on it: being married in the chapel is not breaking any commandments and the lds member should not feel that he or she is breaking a commandment by marrying in the chapel. What good would such guilt serve?

[Deborah]

For the record there are commandments of omission as well as commandments of commission. The Lord has clearly stated those who wish for exaltation must meet certain requirements. One has to ask if it isn't important enough to do those things in this life why would it be in the next?

Having said that I do understand there are circumstances where it is not possible to fulfill all the requirements in this life. But that is between the person and God and the rest of us should not be judging others or feel superior because we have made different choices in our lives.

As an example I have a son who married a girl outside the church. He wasn't really active at the time. However, she ended up joining and they ended up getting married in the temple. They both grew and became converted together. I really believe he was where he was at so that he could bring his little wife into the church. She now has an obsession with genealogy and has found tons of family names and is getting the work done for her ancestors. No one at the time they got married could have seen this outcome.

[frankenstein]

It is a commandment because there is a consequence for not doing it; not inheriting eternal life.

If done in lieu of a temple marriage, it is breaking a commandment.

Cfr that eternal life is a commandment .

[BCSpace]

It is a commandment because there is a consequence for not doing it; not inheriting eternal life.

If done in lieu of a temple marriage, it is breaking a commandment.

Cfr that eternal life is a commandment .

As soon as you point out where I said eternal life is a commandment [as opposed to being a consequence related to the commandment of temple marriage], I will oblige you.

[frankenstein]

Ok cfr that temple marriage is a commandment and not just your philosophy of man mingled with scripture

Edited October 23, 2011 by frankenstein

[why me]

As an example I have a son who married a girl outside the church. He wasn't really active at the time. However, she ended up joining and they ended up getting married in the temple. They both grew and became converted together. I really believe he was where he was at so that he could bring his little wife into the church. She now has an obsession with genealogy and has found tons of family names and is getting the work done for her ancestors. No one at the time they got married could have seen this outcome.

You must have been extremely happy with the outcome. This is a good example why no one should be judged or condemned for marrying outside the temple. And why the idea of a commandment should be downplayed.

[Calm]

OTOH there is a higher likelihood that a marriage that starts out a temple marriage wii end up a temple marriage then one that does not.

And unfortunately I know of marriages where one promised the spouse that a temple marriage was for sure in their future so it was alright to marry now only to fail to live up to that promise leaving the spouse feeling brokenhearted and betrayed.

So I see there are many reasons to promote the commandment of temple marriage prior to someone getting married while being sensitive towards those currently in the position of not being able to attain it. I think our leaders walk the line as best as can be done. I think the risk of not promoting it as a commandment may lead others to believe that it is not an essential step for exaltation and they may end up settling for something less than they actually want.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Just to be clear, I do not believe that all temple marriages are better than all non temple marriages, but I do believe in a specific marriage if they are capable of a temple marriage, it is better for them to be married in the temple than not. I don't think the Church should make it look any other way simply to spare people's feelings if the leaders want what is best for people.

[K-2]

Here's the full section of what Joseph F. Smith said in the quote above, from the book Gospel Doctrine, pgs. 455-457:

Status Of Children In The Resurrection

The spirits of our children are immortal before they come to us, and their spirits, after bodily death, are like they were before they came. They are as they would have appeared if they had lived in the flesh, to grow to maturity, or to develop their physical bodies to the full stature of their spirits. If you see one of your children that has passed away it may appear to you in the form in which you would recognize it, the form of childhood; but if it came to you as a messenger bearing some important truth, it would perhaps come as the spirit of Bishop Edward Hunter's son (who died when a little child) came to him, in the stature of full-grown manhood, and revealed himself to his father, and said: "I am your son."

Bishop Hunter did not understand it. He went to my father and said: "Hyrum, what does that mean? I buried my son when he was only a little boy, but he has come to me as a full-grown man -- a noble, glorious, young man, and declared himself my son. What does it mean?"

Father (Hyrum Smith, the Patriarch) told him that the Spirit of Jesus Christ was full-grown before he was born into the world; and so our children were full-grown and possessed their full stature in the spirit, before they entered mortality, the same stature that they will possess after they have passed away from mortality, and as they will also appear after the resurrection, when they shall have completed their mission.

Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: "You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit." There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.

In 1854, I met with my aunt, the wife of my uncle, Don Carlos Smith, who was the mother of that little girl that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was speaking about when he told the mother that she should have the joy, the pleasure, and the satisfaction of rearing that child, after the resurrection, until it reached the full stature of its spirit; and that it would be a far greater joy than she could possibly have in mortality, because she would be free from the sorrow and fear and disabilities of mortal life, and she would know more than she could know in this life. I met that widow, the mother of that child, and she told me this circumstance and bore testimony to me that this was what the Prophet Joseph Smith said when he was speaking at the funeral of her little daughter.

One day I was conversing with a brother-in-law of mine, Lorin Walker, who married my oldest sister. In the course of the conversation he happened to mention that he was present at the funeral of my cousin Sophronia, and that he heard the Prophet Joseph Smith declare the very words that Aunt Agnes had told me.

I said to him, "Lorin, what did the Prophet say?" and he repeated, as nearly as he could remember, what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to little children. The body remains undeveloped in the grave, but the spirit returns to God who gave it. Afterwards, in the resurrection, the spirit and body will be reunited; the body will develop and grow to the full stature of the spirit; and the resurrected soul will go on to perfection. So I had the statement of two witnesses who heard this doctrine announced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, the source of intelligence.

Eventually I was in conversation with Sister M. Isabella Horne. She began to relate to me the circumstance of her being present at the funeral that I refer to, when Joseph spoke of the death of little children, their resurrection, as little children, and of the glory, and honor, and joy, and happiness the mother would have in rearing her little children in the resurrection to the full stature of their spirits.

"Well," she said, "I heard Joseph say that. I was at that funeral." Sister Isabella Horne told me this.

Then I said to her: "Why haven't you spoken about it before? How is it you have kept it to yourself all these long years? Why haven't you let the Church know something about this declaration of the Prophet?"

She replied: "I did not know whether it was my duty to do so, or whether it would be proper or not."

I said: "Who else was there?"

"My husband was there."

"Does he remember it?"

"Yes, he remembers it."

"Well, will you and Brother Horne give me an affidavit in writing, stating the fact, and let it be sworn to?"

She said, "With the greatest of pleasure."

So I have the testimony in affidavit form of Brother and Sister Horne, in addition to the testimony of my aunt, and the testimony of my brother-in-law, in relation to the Prophet Joseph's remarks at that funeral.

Just a little while later, to my joy and satisfaction, the first man I ever heard mention it in public was Franklin D. Richards; and when he spoke of it, I felt in my soul: the truth has come out. The truth will prevail. It is mighty, and it will live; for there is no power that can destroy it. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon approved of the doctrine and after that I preached it.

It is a good thing for us not to attempt to advance new doctrine, or new and advanced thought in relation to principles and doctrines pertaining to, or presumed to pertain to, the gospel of Jesus Christ, without weighing it carefully, with the experience of years, before we attempt to make a doctrinal test and to advance it to the people of the Lord. There is so much simple truth, necessary to be understood that has been revealed to us in the gospel that it is extreme folly in us to attempt to go beyond the truth that has been revealed, until we have mastered and can comprehend the truth that we have. There is a great deal within our reach that we have not yet mastered. -- Improvement Era, Vol. 21, May, 1918, pp. 567-573.

I also thought I'd post D&C 131:1-4 since it looks like nobody has yet:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

We can't assume that because there may be children on thrones that they have received no more of the gospel and its ordinances than they did when they died. All of the ordinances required for exaltation are available by proxy to those who died before receiving them, who did not refuse them in this life, and who are willing to accept the associated responsibilities and covenants.

Edited October 23, 2011 by K-2

[BCSpace]

Ok cfr that temple marriage is a commandment and not just your philosophy of man mingled with scripture

You can start with 1 Cor 11:11 which says marriage is required for salvation. You can then go to D&C 132 whcih says such must be done the Lord's way. If one is LDS, the Lord's way is shown to us by the prophets; the temple.

[Cobalt-70]

cobalt-70:

The Church has a long established method for determining its doctrine. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses KFD doesn't meet the criteria for doctrine.

The ideas in the King Follett sermon were most certainly doctrine. Even false doctrine is doctrine. They are not, however, canonized doctrine, because the sermon was never incorporated into Mormon books of scripture. But then again, the most essential elements Mormon theology and practice are not canonized either, such as the idea that God was once a man, that the President of the Church is selected and set apart by he Twelve, that the Endowment is necessary for exaltation, that children must be sealed to parents, that there is sex in the eternities, that Jesus is the "god of the Old Testament," and that we have a heavenly Mother.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Lord of Strange Deaths]

Was polygamy once a commandment?

[Cobalt-70]

We can't assume that because there may be children on thrones that they have received no more of the gospel and its ordinances than they did when they died. All of the ordinances required for exaltation are available by proxy to those who died before receiving them, who did not refuse them in this life, and who are willing to accept the associated responsibilities and covenants.

It is difficult, however, to imagine a sexually-immature child entering into a celestial marriage with either another sexually immature child or a resurrected adult.

A couple of notes as to the Joseph F. Smith quote: First, this quote is, of course, a second-hand account told many years after the alleged statements by Joseph Smith, whereas the King Follett sermon was recorded contemporaneously by people who wrote down what Smith had to say. Smith is recorded by two independent scribes as saying that those who die as children will remain in the form in which they died, which contradicts what Smith is quoted as saying at the funeral of Sophronia Smith.

Second, Sophronia Smith died in 1938, which was six years prior to the King Follett sermon. Mormon doctrine had changed quite a lot between 1838 and 1844. In 1838, for example, Joseph Smith was not yet teaching that humans could become gods and reign on heavenly thrones. To the extent that there is a conflict, the later more mature doctrine takes precedence.