Bob Crockett Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 Exactly my point. Shacking up has been decriminalized and there are now plenty of legal means to protect life and limb of those involved, so why insist on civil marriage as a prerequisite for a temple marriage?Hey, I'm with you brother. My libertarian beliefs say that civil marriage ought to be abolished, and if you want to get married go to your rabbi or priest.But that isn't going to happen. Until then, civil marriage is almost universally recognized by the state and other churches as the touchstone to define what is, and what is not, fornication. After all, Jesus attended and seemed to endorse marriages.
cinepro Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 Thanks for all your replies, I've addressed them one by one. So far, I have not heard a compelling reason for the church's insistence on civil marriage as a prerequisite for temple marriage in the situation as described in the OP.I apologize. In your original post, you asked for "ideas". I didn't realize you were actually looking for "compelling reasons".
Ariarates Posted April 18, 2012 Author Posted April 18, 2012 If the man doesn't have the paperwork he needs, how does the church know he isn't already married in the country he came from?That's a good point. You could argue that if there's a legal marriage, it must be OK. That would certainly hold in most western countries where bigamy is illegal.
Ariarates Posted April 18, 2012 Author Posted April 18, 2012 I apologize. In your original post, you asked for "ideas". I didn't realize you were actually looking for "compelling reasons".My bad. I was indeed looking for good ideas but forgot to specify.
Calm Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 The legal standard in the countries described in the OP is that it's not necessary for two people to be legally married to be living together. Why would the church add extralegal requirements in order to be consistent in legal standards?Because in some countries it is the legal standard and thus would be required policy of the Church. As far as I know the Church has one handbook (two volumes) of policy, not a different one for each country depending on the legal requirements or other social elements of that country.
CV75 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Any ideas?At least one country (Malaysia) prohibits citizens to marry refugees. I see this kind of law as being subject to D&C 134:12, where the Church does not interfere. Since national / civil legalities (as tools of the “masters”) and economics (as the disadvantage of the “slaves”) are standing in the way of the couple marrying, this verse seems to apply in that situation as well.It seems to me that the reason the Church does not perform a marriage ceremony that has no legal status by itself has to do with the Church’s attitude toward the sovereignty of nations within which it operates (“render unto Caesar”) and its deference to the laws of the land. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) If you think of the language in the temple endowment connected with the law of chastity, it is pretty clear that the church-and by extension, the Lord-expects compliance with the civil marriage laws of the land.It's almost as if the church is subcontracting its definition of chastity to civil governments. Contrast that with Joseph Smith, who around 1835 claimed the priesthood right to perform monogamous church marriages even in defiance of civil law. Edited April 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Cobalt-70 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 There is a bit of an inconsistency at work here. On the one hand, the church defines the chastity of a relationship between a man and a woman on the basis of civil laws. On the other hand, the church does not follow the above rule when the couple who wants to have sex are of the same gender. 1
Pahoran Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 It's almost as if the church is subcontracting its definition of chastity to civil governments.But only almost. What's actually happening is that the institution of marriage is prior to civil governments, but governments have taken it upon themselves to regulate it. A lawful marriage provides a convenient boundary marker, but the secular state does not legislate eternal principles.There is a bit of an inconsistency at work here. On the one hand, the church defines the chastity of a relationship between a man and a woman on the basis of civil laws. On the other hand, the church does not follow the above rule when the couple who wants to have sex are of the same gender.That's because "same sex marriage" is not marriage as the Church understands it, but merely a legal fiction. In allowing such, the secular state has moved the boundary into territory where the Church cannot use it. There is no inconsistency.Regards,Pahoran
Cobalt-70 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 But only almost. What's actually happening is that the institution of marriage is prior to civil governments, but governments have taken it upon themselves to regulate it. A lawful marriage provides a convenient boundary marker, but the secular state does not legislate eternal principles.It seems to be more than just a "convenient boundary marker." The difference between a hallowed union and a grave moral sin could hinge on whether or not the right form is filled out in triplicate by the proper bureaucratic official. Not only that, but it would still be a grave moral sin even if the couple were otherwise properly married and sealed in the temple. Thus, the power of a government official is (in effect, if not in theory) greater than the sealing power of Elijah.
Pahoran Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 It seems to be more than just a "convenient boundary marker." The difference between a hallowed union and a grave moral sin could hinge on whether or not the right form is filled out in triplicate by the proper bureaucratic official. Not only that, but it would still be a grave moral sin even if the couple were otherwise properly married and sealed in the temple. Thus, the power of a government official is (in effect, if not in theory) greater than the sealing power of Elijah.You realise that none of that bears even a passing resemblance to reality, don't you?Regards,Pahoran
Buzzard Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 There is a bit of an inconsistency at work here. On the one hand, the church defines the chastity of a relationship between a man and a woman on the basis of civil laws. On the other hand, the church does not follow the above rule when the couple who wants to have sex are of the same gender.Please, PLEASE, let's not go through that again. There are a whole team of throughly flogged dead horses on multiple recently retired threads.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Please, PLEASE, let's not go through that again. There are a whole team of throughly flogged dead horses on multiple recently retired threads.I raised that issue not to get into the same sex marriage debate. I raised it as an example of how the church gives precedence to worldly law over its own sacred ceremonies in one situation, but isn't consistent about that precedence. I'm just saying that it isn't good enough any more to rely on standards of worldly law to tell us the difference between an act of unchastity and an act of connubial right. To the extent that we have to do so, there is a failure of our theology.
Pahoran Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 I raised that issue not to get into the same sex marriage debate. I raised it as an example of how the church gives precedence to worldly law over its own sacred ceremonies in one situation, but isn't consistent about that precedence.But the Church doesn't "gives precedence to worldly law over its own sacred ceremonies." In any situation.It simply makes being on the right side of the law part of the conditions of this (and some other) commandments.I'm just saying that it isn't good enough any more to rely on standards of worldly law to tell us the difference between an act of unchastity and an act of connubial right. To the extent that we have to do so, there is a failure of our theology.I do not know who is that "we" you reference, but there is no "failure of our theology" anywhere in view. Our "theology" is not even in the frame here; "praxis," perhaps, but I don't see a failure there, either.Marriage (between men and women, for those to whom the term is not clear enough) is one of the important reasons for our earthly life. There is no "failure" in teaching that those who marry need to make their marriages as safe and strong as they can be, including making them safe from legal entanglement.Regards,Pahoran
Cobalt-70 Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 But the Church doesn't "gives precedence to worldly law over its own sacred ceremonies." In any situation.It simply makes being on the right side of the law part of the conditions of this (and some other) commandments.But unless you are living in Iran or West Virginia, nobody who cohabitates is "on the wrong side of the law."
cinepro Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 But unless you are living in Iran or West Virginia, nobody who cohabitates is "on the wrong side of the law."And then there's "common law" marriage, which can also be recognized by the Church (if I remember the rumors I heard on my mission correctly).
CV75 Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Thus, the power of a government official is (in effect, if not in theory) greater than the sealing power of Elijah.Sometimes this appears to happen, as with the Crucifixion. The Chuch abides civil / magesterial procedures as part of its doctrine. Some may argue unless otherwise commanded of the Lord, but generally speaking.
Ariarates Posted April 20, 2012 Author Posted April 20, 2012 Again, thanks for all of your replies. The consensus seems to be that the church insists on civil marriage out of deference to the law of the land, as long as it doesn't clash with LDS theology (think polygamy, cohabitation and gay marriage). Also, as a mechanism to ensure that legal standards are met, where available (such as proof of identity, prevention of bigamy, etc.).A bit convoluted if you ask me, but I'm guessing this is just how it came to be over time.
Recommended Posts