Is Temple Marriage A Commandment?

[jo1952]

name='calmoriah' timestamp='1319473540' post='1209058846']

The first great commandment is to love God, the second is to love our neighbour. If we break these commandments, the greatest of all commandments, we are not punished, we simply stay in the state of separation from God and do not progress. If Christ did not attach a punishment to the greatest of the commandments, then there is no reason to assume that all commandments must be so structured. Just like every good parent, God varies the rules in order to not only give the widest experience available, but to allow us to participate and make choices for a variety of reasons. First, most of our choices are immature, based on fear or reward. Then as we spiritually mature and come to understand God better, our relationship changes and we begin to obey out of awe and a desire to grow. Finally we come to know and trust the Lord so well that our actions are driven by love and a desire to be one. At that stage we still need commandments to know what the Lord desires of us, but we hardly need a punishment attached to drive us out of fear.

There are layers of understanding to be had here. First of all, if we are not loving our neighbor, our non-loving is often manifested in ways which have nothing to do with whether we served them or loved them in a spiritual sense. It is manifested by telling lies, coveting something they have, stealing, or any of the other ten commandments to which punishments ARE meted out. It is not as cut and dried/black or white as you are presenting it.

Anyone who is approaching a temple marriage where they are entering into a deeply personal relationship with the Lord should not need a threat to motivate him in that choice.

I agree. Yet your argument that it is a commandment DOES threaten people. It is unavoidable to call this a commandment and NOT bring the concept of a threat along with it.

I can't remember, why me and Jo...have you had a chance to participate in a temple marriage yet, either your own or someone else's? I am thinking if you have not gone through them yet, that may be a reason for your different perspectives...not that you are trying to justify anything, just the flavour of the experience itself might affect your POV. It certainly did mine.

Yes, I have participated in my own Temple marriage. However, he fell away and did not want to be married. He has since become sadly very attached to the world. That was 30 some years ago. It has been painful to see what has happened through his choices. OTOH, I have been very blessed in that I met Franktalk over three years ago. After investigating the Church for over two years, he was baptized this past March. We got married and are planning to be sealed in March 2012. We have been extremely blessed by our Loving Heavenly Father. Thank you for asking!!!

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I am not seeing it as I want to see it. I think it would be just fine to teach it as a requirement and not a commandment. But that's not what I've been taught from Primary up to experiences in the temple.

So far you have merely offered your opinion that I am interpreting some simple statements wrong and that they think primary kids are too stupid to know the difference between commandment and ordinance...while my experience as a Junior Primary teacher for 20+ years demonstrates to me that they are quite capable of knowing the difference.

I would really appreciate something more substantial than just your opinion, but if that is all you want to offer, then I think I will withdraw from the conversation as I believe I understand your position sufficiently.

[jo1952]

I've known quite a few RS pres. that were single, unendowed, or married to a nonmember. I assumed it would be the same at the stake level. My understanding is that it is only the Bishop...and I assume Stake Pres. that are required to have temple marriages.

I am talking about 'higher up' such as a mission pres. and his wife, temple pres. and the matron, the members of the General Relief Society Board can be single, but surely they must be temple endowed? Aren't General Authorities who are married or have been married, temple married?

I am glad that you clarified that for GG. I would like to emphasize that these are positions which are held in our earthly estate, inasmuch as good individuals who later accept Ordinances performed on their behalf, do not have the same limitations placed upon them through the eternities depending upon their Judgment.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I don't think you understand what I mean by commandment. It also appears to me you are defining commandment in a much more complicated way then either the scriptures or the Church does.

If I were to accept your assumptions about what commandments are, I would agree with you. But my 50plus years in the Church leads me to disagree.

A commandment is very simple. It is what the Lord tells us to do. Whether its a requirement, covenant, punishment attached, etc. Is just a variation on a theme as Lehi pointed out way back at the beginning of the thread. Commandment is a category label with a lot of sub categories under it.

Until you can show me where the apostles state that baptism is not a commandment and celestial marriage is not a divine command, I will continue to believe what the manuals and conference talks say.

There are some concepts that are complicated, but this isn't one of them.

I would challenge you to use your same arguments with those who are either not LDS, or worse, are antagonists against the LDS Church. (Good luck to ALL of us in doing that!!!) I do not believe it is as simple as you think it is. Since we have both run our course of presenting our reasons for believing the way we do about this subject, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I believe our differences are hung up in the semantics.

Every word that Jesus spoke was not a commandment. Also, where Sometimesaint mentions Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out and Baptize people, he is overlooking that this did not equate into the recipient of their labors into a commandment to get baptized. The Apostles did not baptize anyone who didn't want to be baptized; however they fulfilled Jesus' commandment by finding individuals to teach the Gospel to, and performing the ordinance of baptism for those who desired it. Again, this is two different things.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I am not seeing it as I want to see it. I think it would be just fine to teach it as a requirement and not a commandment. But that's not what I've been taught from Primary up to experiences in the temple.

So far you have merely offered your opinion that I am interpreting some simple statements wrong and that they think primary kids are too stupid to know the difference between commandment and ordinance...while my experience as a Junior Primary teacher for 20+ years demonstrates to me that they are quite capable of knowing the difference.

I would really appreciate something more substantial than just your opinion, but if that is all you want to offer, then I think I will withdraw from the conversation as I believe I understand your position sufficiently.

Children are not stupid. I did not say they were stupid. Even the Bible taught us that we need to first be taught the milk understanding of the Gospel and all that goes along with it. Paul taught that those He was teaching who were already members of the Church and who should have advanced by the time he wrote his epistle to them were STILL not ready for the meat. You are getting frustrated because you cannot convince me to agree with your interpretations. Please do not put words into my mouth.

In fact, we ALL learn line upon line and precept upon precept. No one can learn everything at once. And the Holy Ghost only reveals more to each of us personally AFTER Father has deemed we are ready and prepared to receive it.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 24, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

I agree. Yet your argument that it is a commandment DOES threaten people. It is unavoidable to call this a commandment and NOT bring the concept of a threat along with it.

No, that is not my argument. One can not love one's neighbor without harming him. Simple ignoring would qualify. Not getting to know them beyond a casual hello could qualify. Interacting in an honest, but uncaring way could qualify. There is no inherent requirement of harm in not loving someone. If there was we would all be in big trouble for all those people we don't know and therefore can't love. Not all commandments have threats attached to them. I can command my kids to clean their rooms. If they do, I'll reward them with legos, if not nothing changes save my frustration level.

Family life, whether God's or man's is not built on military terms where one can be courtmartialed for disobeying a command. There are plenty of commands where it is more like missing out on a promotion.

We got married and are planning to be sealed in March 2012.

Great news!

[jo1952]

name='calmoriah' timestamp='1319479322' post='1209058907']

No, that is not my argument. One can not love one's neighbor without harming him. Simple ignoring would qualify. Not getting to know them beyond a casual hello could qualify. Interacting in an honest, but uncaring way could qualify. There is no inherent requirement of harm in not loving someone. If there was we would all be in big trouble for all those people we don't know and therefore can't love. Not all commandments have threats attached to them. I can command my kids to clean their rooms. If they do, I'll reward them with legos, if not nothing changes save my frustration level.

I was referring to your take that Temple marriage is a commandment. Merely by calling it a commandment, there is fear and threat attached by the nature of it being considered a commandment. OTOH, an ordinance, in that an ordinance is a contract, is perceived differently in a person's mind.

Family life, whether God's or man's is not built on military terms where one can be courtmartialed for disobeying a command. There are plenty of commands where it is more like missing out on a promotion.

However, your interpretation translates into Exaltation being a commandment. The offering Jesus presented about Exaltation is that broad is the gate, but narrow is the way; and few there be that find it. He did NOT say, "I command you to achieve Exaltation". Okay, okay....enough said on this subject. I am not your enemy, Calmoriah. You are my sister in Christ and I love you!!!

Great news!

Thank you!!!! Of course, I will keep everyone posted (whether they want to be or not.....I will not be able to withhold from sharing my joy!!).

Love,

jo

[Calm]

I was referring to your take that Temple marriage is a commandment. Merely by calling it a commandment, there is fear and threat attached by the nature of it being considered a commandment.

Please show me in the church's teachings that all commandments have fear and threat attached to them.

It's a big deal to me because I think it's sad when people look on commandments and see fear and threat. Commandments are a gift to us from a loving Father, we should look on them with gratitude and joy and embrace the chance to participate in them with the Lord.

Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

Please show me in the church's teachings that all commandments have fear and threat attached to them.

It is not in the Church's teachings. It is in the mind of mankind.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

It is not in the Church's teachings. It is in the mind of mankind.

Regards,

jo

Please read the rest of what I posted.

I don't understand why we should accept the view of the carnal, natural man or of the world over the teachings of the Church.

[Nathair/|\]

For what it's worth, a stake president told a Sunday school class I was in a few years ago that the commandments were like signposts pointing the way to happiness.

[Calm]

For what it's worth, a stake president told a Sunday school class I was in a few years ago that the commandments were like signposts pointing the way to happiness.

I find this attitude typical among LDS. Commandments are not burdens that weigh us down, but rather if we follow them we will raised up.

This should be a link to a beautiful little song that illustrates well IMO the LDS attitude towards commandments: http://lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=2&searchseqstart=146&searchsubseqstart=%20&searchseqend=146&searchsubseqend=ZZZ

If it doesn't work sorry, but my iPad doesn't have the application to run it so I can't check.

Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[Nathair/|\]

For what it's worth, a stake president told a Sunday school class I was in a few years ago that the commandments were like signposts pointing the way to happiness.

I forgot to insert "former" before stake president, sorry. It doesn't change the validity of his thought, though.

I find this attitude typical among LDS. Commandments are not burdens that weigh us down, but rather if we follow them we will raised up.

This should be a link to a beautiful little song that illustrates well IMO the LDS attitude towards commandments: http://lds.org/churc...chsubseqend=ZZZ

If it doesn't work sorry, but my iPad doesn't have the application to run it so I can't check.

That's certainly been my experience with following the commandments. I think it's relevant to this discussion because we are taught that the greatest happiness we can have comes through being a part of an eternal family.

[jo1952]

Please read the rest of what I posted.

I don't understand why we should accept the view of the carnal, natural man or of the world over the teachings of the Church.

I did read your posts fully. Since we are to be "every member a missionary", it behooves us to be able to understand how the world sees us and our teachings. Commandments are seen by mankind (at least by those who believe there is a God) as something we should not break because of the fear of the punishment attached to them. Why are we continually are repenting from our sins? Because we do not want to be bound in the chains of our sin. Even members of the Church are fearful they are not doing enough or doing their best and that, even though they have been married in the Temple, that they are not going to be able to achieve Exaltation (as plainly manifested in RS yesterday). We are taught to fear God; yet, as we come to better and better understanding through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, there is a point at which our love for God hopefully becomes greater than our fear of God. It is not until our faith becomes such that we actually believe that when we give our burdens to Jesus, He has truly taken them that we are freed from our fear.

The last thing we need to do is misunderstand the difference between a commandment and an ordinance, which can add even more fear to the equation for any of us who have not yet reached a point of perfection which leaves us fearless. As LDS, we have a better understanding of what our possibilities are; thus we also can have a greater fear of missing the mark of resulting desires. Jesus came to heal us; including healing us from our fears which can become stumbling blocks for us. Yet fear remains in our minds until we are freed from those fears. Whether we are correct or not to have fear, we are still susceptible to it. It is stuck in our minds until it is spiritually excised. Even for many members, that means they will never be freed from all of their fears while they are in the flesh; though it is really just a misinterpretation on their part.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

For what it's worth, a stake president told a Sunday school class I was in a few years ago that the commandments were like signposts pointing the way to happiness.

He said this with the wisdom of his understanding. We, as LDS, realize that even breaking the commandments is teaching us something for our good; though it may take years for us to understand this. We understand that in keeping the commandments, we have blessings that manifest themselves in a myriad of ways. Yet, even so, it is in the breaking of a commandment when we really learn; it is through our mistakes we can learn the most. The lesson learned at that point is likely never to be forgotten. When we realize this, how great is our joy as our repentance avails us of Christ's Atonement and our eyes of spiritual understanding are opened!! Still, our knowledge then reminds us to repent when we sin, as we know the consequences of unrepented sins. The fear of unrepented sin then motivates us to repent, and to re-dedicate ourselves to keeping the commandments so that we can receive blessings instead---even though the process of repentance itself can bring spiritual miracles with it, if we allow it to.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I forgot to insert "former" before stake president, sorry. It doesn't change the validity of his thought, though.

That's certainly been my experience with following the commandments. I think it's relevant to this discussion because we are taught that the greatest happiness we can have comes through being a part of an eternal family.

Which is WHY the Ordinance of being sealed in the Temple has been provided to us. What is bound on earth is bound in Heaven. Commandments do not bind; Ordinances do.

Regards,

jo