To Lds: How Does God View Marriage Outside The Temple?

[Calm]

So it's clear we don't have all the facts.

For all we know it could have been an 85 year old senior couple getting married for time only.

Or two LDS who were widow and widower who were previously sealed to others.

[mfbukowski]

Or two LDS who were widow and widower who were previously sealed to others.

Actually that is what I meant.

It's not as if their intent was to start a new family- but people say rude things all the time.

Edited February 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

If it was not just a nonLDS marriage, but LDS participating in a nontemple marriage, I can see how some LDS might view that as not loving enough in there would be an inference that the couple did not want to live together for eternity, but only at best for life and possibly might be open to the idea of divorcing if it got rough.

I would not make that assumption myself, but I can see some LDS possibly doing so where there is an actual choice. I find it totally absurd if it involves nonLDS who don't have an option for eternal marriage in their faith.

Inferences are like assumptions. It's always better not to make an *** out of u or me, or at least not voluntarily.

That's why I try my best not to *** u me anything.

Oh for Pete's sake. Stupid auto edit feature. The word *** is in the Bible!

Edited February 25, 2013 by Ahab

[saemo]

If it was not just a nonLDS marriage, but LDS participating in a nontemple marriage, I can see how some LDS might view that as not loving enough in there would be an inference that the couple did not want to live together for eternity, but only at best for life and possibly might be open to the idea of divorcing if it got rough.

I would not make that assumption myself, but I can see some LDS possibly doing so where there is an actual choice. I find it totally absurd if it involves nonLDS who don't have an option for eternal marriage in their faith.

It was two young people (20's), raised LDS, didn't marry in a temple.

Funny, that is what I would think about two people who were living together and NOT married. That is, there isn't a commitment there to each other.

Sorry, but that is so weird to think that about a married couple!

Edited February 25, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

It was two young people (20's), raised LDS, didn't marry in a temple.

Funny, that is what I would think about two people who were living together and NOT married. That is, there isn't a commitment there to each other.

Sorry, but that is so weird to think that about a married couple!

Some people think of a marriage for time only as if it's not a real marriage, though. That's the problem. It is a real marriage, though, although it's not one that will last forever. It's just going to end at some point, unlike an LDS marriage which has been sealed by the power of God, because that will last forever.

There can still be some good reasons for people to "start" their marriage as a marriage for time only while planning to be sealed together forever later, though.

Case in point: I married a widow with 2 children, both of us LDS, and both of us truly loving each other. I had been less active in the Church for a while, though, only recently starting to meet with the Church a few months before I met my then future wife, so when we got married it was a marriage for time only. Several factors were involved in our decision to do that. In no particular order:

* it would have been close to a year before I would have been able to be sealed to her in a temple

* our (or her) 2 boys may still not have been able to attend the temple wedding because they weren't that active in the Church

* I was (and still am) the only member of the Church from my side of the family, so they wouldn't have been able to attend either

* we didn't want to wait that long

* we knew we could get sealed in a temple later, because of how it is possible, with no need to feel pressure for not doing it then

There were probably some other reasons that I'm not thinking about right now, but the point is, we did and still do love each other.

Enough said.

[mfbukowski]

It was two young people (20's), raised LDS, didn't marry in a temple.

Funny, that is what I would think about two people who were living together and NOT married. That is, there isn't a commitment there to each other.

Sorry, but that is so weird to think that about a married couple!

It's a little hard to understand the different psychological perspective being married for eternity gives if one has not experienced it. It really comes home that your entire mission in life is to learn to love another the way Christ loves his church.

That IS your mission in life- and you will continue your mission outside this world as well. It's one continuous goal for all eternity. When one promises that one will part at death in the very ceremony that is supposed to bring you together it is a very different experience. When you hear others talking about "Yep - it's a big commitment- I will be with Susie the rest of my life" it sounds rather hollow. When you say before God that you will take this person "until death do you part" that is exactly what you get. You are voluntarily limiting how long it will last.

The people who made those remarks were clearly insensitive and rude, but there IS a difference in how it feels to be married for eternity.

[Ahab]

That IS your mission in life- and you will continue your mission outside this world as well. It's one continuous goal for all eternity. When one promises that one will part at death in the very ceremony that is supposed to bring you together it is a very different experience. When you hear others talking about "Yep - it's a big commitment- I will be with Susie the rest of my life" it sounds rather hollow. When you say before God that you will take this person "until death do you part" that is exactly what you get. You are voluntarily limiting how long it will last.

That phrase "til death do you part" isn't necessarily a part of a marriage for time only. When my wife and I had our marriage sanctioned by the laws of this world we were married by our bishop and he didn't use those words when he officiated. Many other officiators don't either, even though you and I know not everyone is authorized to officiate with the authority of God.

The people who made those remarks were clearly insensitive and rude, but there IS a difference in how it feels to be married for eternity.

That perspective can be enjoyed by people who want to be married for eternity, too, even if they haven't been sealed by that power yet. It's not just the authority of the officiator that makes the difference, it's also the feelings of those who are married, and if people who are married for time only want to be married eternally there is a way for that to happen.

People who want a forever marriage just need to go through with what it takes for that to happen. Until it's too late there is still time for all who want it to happen.

[Calm]

Sorry, but that is so weird to think that about a married couple!

There are levels of commitment that exist even among nontemple sealed married couples. Would you feel a marriage where the partners agree to 'openness' in sexual partners to likely have the same level of commitment and love as one where the couple swore to be sexually faithful to each other?

I would assume that Catholics who marry with a commitment to abide by the no divorce in marriage belief have a different commitment level than those in our society who see marriage as something that may or may not work out and that is really not a big thing because we are allowed to have doovers through divorce.

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[saemo]

It's a little hard to understand the different psychological perspective being married for eternity gives if one has not experienced it. It really comes home that your entire mission in life is to learn to love another the way Christ loves his church.

That IS your mission in life- and you will continue your mission outside this world as well. It's one continuous goal for all eternity. When one promises that one will part at death in the very ceremony that is supposed to bring you together it is a very different experience. When you hear others talking about "Yep - it's a big commitment- I will be with Susie the rest of my life" it sounds rather hollow. When you say before God that you will take this person "until death do you part" that is exactly what you get. You are voluntarily limiting how long it will last.

The people who made those remarks were clearly insensitive and rude, but there IS a difference in how it feels to be married for eternity.

Hi. I read your reply yesterday, and have been thinking on a reply that doesn't sound argumentative. I think, one, your belief that Christians can't understand the call to love your neighbor as yourself can only be found in a certain kind of marriage, to be false. (Sorry, I couldn't think softer word that conveys my thoughts). Jesus said, "love your neighbor as yourself". This means, to me, that we gaze on others as Christ's gaze is on us. To see in the "other" what God sees in us. To see a person that possesses an inherent dignity, being made in the image of God, created by God because God loves them.

I see marriage as an image of God as well, God is three, and God is one. God is not alone, but exists eternally and infinitely as relationship of Father and Son. God is LOVE. God is not married, to believe so would be to go down the path of goddesses, which is a paganization of God.

As for sealing...We are sealed, by our baptism to Jesus Christ. Heaven is where our familial love if fulfilled, in Jesus Christ. Where we truly understand, in the presence of God, perfect love, in Christ. I don't see a reason why I would need to be sealed to a human, no matter how much I love them, when we are all, as the Body of Christ, sealed to Him.

[saemo]

There are levels of commitment that exist even among nontemple sealed married couples. Would you feel a marriage where the partners agree to 'openness' in sexual partners to likely have the same level of commitment and love as one where the couple swore to be sexually faithful to each other?

I would assume that Catholics who marry with a commitment to abide by the no divorce in marriage belief have a different commitment level than those in our society who see marriage as something that may or may not work out and that is really not a big thing because we are allowed to have doovers through divorce.

I don't view any valid marriage between one man and one woman to be something less. By valid I mean, both parties entered marriage willingly, without coercion, free of a previous marriage, and with the intent for the marriage to last. As difficulties arise, certainly I believe the commitment is first to a lasting relationship, but the reality is, both Catholics and temple married Mormons get divorced. I withhold judgment on these circumstances myself.

I think it becomes more problematic when a divorced person marries again. Divorce is not immoral, but it isn't recognized as a "real" event by the Catholic church, in most cases. Thus, a person is not seen in the eyes of the Catholic church as divorced. An immoral situation occurs when that person remarries, as it isn't a valid marriage, and is viewed as an adulterous relationship.

Which, I see as problematic for anyone who believes they are still married in the event of a spouses death. If you are still married, you are not free to remarry without entering into an adulterous situation.

Which brings me to a reoccurring idea in this thread. The marriage covenant ends at death. One cannot be married to a dead person. It flies in the face of reason to believe that you are married to someone who is, in fact dead. You can't marry a dead person, unless you believe a live person can be sealed to a dead person...which if that is the case, then I'm sorry, but that I see that as all kinds of weird and wrong.

Anyway, the marriage covenant ending at death is not an indicator that marital loves ends at death. We view all 7 Sacraments that Christ gave to us, as prefiguring heaven. An example is the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb of the OT, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the New Covenant. The sacrifice and the lamb itself is a type of event that prefigures Christ and our Salvation. It wasn't fulfilled with a lamb, the literal animal. So we see the Sacraments in the same light, a type of event that prefigures our life in heaven, but is not a literal expression of the fulfillment itself.

In short, marriage is fulfilled in heaven, not exterminated.

Edited February 26, 2013 by saemo

[Calm]

By valid I mean, both parties entered marriage willingly, without coercion, free of a previous marriage, and with the intent for the marriage to last.

You see no difference between a marriage that is based on sexuality fidelity and one where the partners are open to other sexual partners?

I have heard reported marriage vows that are specifically written in such a way as to include the expectation that the marriage will only last as long a it is 'fun' or some such thing. Do you see such a marriage as invalid?

A relative's marriage came to an end because one partner said marriage shouldn't be something one had to work at and as soon as it became work, he had a right to end it. How would you view that relationship?

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[saemo]

You see no difference between a marriage that is based on sexuality fidelity and one where the partners are open to other sexual partners?

If the marriage was entered with the intent to be "open", then no, I don't view that as a valid marriage. If the marriage was originally made with the intent for marital fidelity, and later changed the acceptance of additional sexual partners, that is called adultery (called that no matter what, just to be clear). The marriage itself isn't made invalid, but has become disordered (no doubt). The scenario then becomes one of "what ifs", which we could go through all day I think!

I have heard reported marriage vows that are specifically written in such a way as to include the expectation that the marriage will only last as long a it is 'fun' or some such thing. Do you see such a marriage as invalid?

Yes. (Sorry I put no at first because I misread "invalid" as "valid". Edited to fix my misreading.)

A relative's marriage came to an end because one partner said marriage shouldn't be something one had to work at and as soon as it became work, he had a right to end it. How would you view that relationship?

If that was the person's intent at the time of the marriage, I wouldn't view it as a valid marriage. If the intent was there, and the person changed their mind later, then I view the relationship as broken. Not in terms of the marriage is made invalid, but the relationship is suffering.

Edited February 26, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

God is not married, to believe so would be to go down the path of goddesses, which is a paganization of God.

Actually, God (our Father) is married. He actually has a wife, if not more than one. And no I'm not talking about the Church. He actually has his own wife, or wives, and that relationship with her is just as sacred if not more so than anything else, and the sooner you understand that the better for you and everyone else who doesn't understand that about God.

As for sealing...We are sealed, by our baptism to Jesus Christ. Heaven is where our familial love if fulfilled, in Jesus Christ. Where we truly understand, in the presence of God, perfect love, in Christ.

You can have perfect love for God and Christ and also your spouse. The fact that you can become one with your spouse doesn't limit you from becoming one with God, and with your spouse you'll be able to enjoy more blessings than you could without one. It is only through marriage that you'll be able to have your own children, just as our Father does, and without your own spouse you'll never be able to have your own children.

I don't see a reason why I would need to be sealed to a human, no matter how much I love them, when we are all, as the Body of Christ, sealed to Him.

I'm trying to help you see what you don't seem to see. You won't be able to have any of your own children without having your own spouse, in heaven. You'll be able to help God with his children, and others who are married in heaven with the children they'll have, but without your own spouse you won't be able to have your own children. Think about that, and if you decide that's not important for you then you don't have to worry about not having any. I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of work helping other people with their children.

Just try to realize this: The purpose of our Lord's atonement was to restore us to the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall, with the added knowledge we now have of good and evil. They were commanded to have children and that commandment is still in full force, even though there are both good and evil ways of going about it.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Ahab

[saemo]

Calmoriah, I think we've been highly legalistic in the discussion here. My intent, next, isn't to be overly descriptive and preachy, but I think it is important to understand the root of my view is found in our call to be perfect, even as God is perfect. In St. John's description, that "God is love", there is found what it means to be perfect. To love perfectly as God loves perfectly.

We are fallen, and so our love is not perfect. We don't know how to love as we ought. Christ shows us the Way, in His exhortation to love our neighbor as ourself. One of the ways the we fail to love as we ought, is when we view love as an object, as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. So, in all the ways we can view marriage, it often happens we have the intent of pure love, but being the fallen ones we are, our love is often disordered.

Multiple partners is a means to carnal pleasure. Certainly, I don't deny that people genuinely love each other, even in sinful situation, but the love is disordered when a person becomes viewed as an object of desire. Bringing in additional partners is objectifying the marital union, not fulfilling it. Getting married for "fun" is making marriage an object of self gratification. Giving up on a relationship because it is "hard", is again, viewing love as a means to an end (subjective happiness), rather than the end itself.

This isn't some self-righteous pious judgment, but a commentary (probably unwanted) on the human condition, which I am not immune to.

While I don't agree with the LDS idea of marriage, it isn't that I think it is invalid. I see it as making marriage a means to an end (exaltation), rather than seeing it as the end itself. Love, which is defined most clearly as GOD, Who is our destiny.

Edited February 26, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

Actually, God (our Father) is married. He actually has a wife, if not more than one. And no I'm not talking about the Church. He actually has his own wife, or wives, and that relationship with her is just as sacred if not more so than anything else, and the sooner you understand that the better for you and everyone else who doesn't understand that about God.

Yes, we will never agree here. There is but One God, there isn't a pantheon of gods/goddesses.

You can have perfect love for God and Christ and also your spouse. The fact that you can become one with your spouse doesn't limit you from becoming one with God, and with your spouse you'll be able to enjoy more blessings than you could without one. It is only through marriage that you'll be able to have your own children, just as our Father does, and without your own spouse you'll never be able to have your own children.

But your belief infers that one cannot have perfect love in heaven, in Christ, without marriage. Love is given a caveat then, no?

The rest of LDS belief, of God procreating...sorry, just looks like more pagan ideas to me.

I'm trying to help you see what you don't seem to see. You won't be able to have any of your own children without having your own spouse, in heaven. You'll be able to help God with his children, and others who are married in heaven with the children they'll have, but without your own spouse you won't be able to have your own children. Think about that, and if you decide that's not important for you then you don't have to worry about not having any. I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of work helping other people with their children.

You know, I love my family, but the idea perfect love and happiness isn't found in God, and God alone, is counter to everything in Scripture. I'm not trying to be offensive, but this statement really makes me think that marriage has become a god itself in Mormonism.

Just try to realize this: The purpose of our Lord's atonement was to restore us to the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall, with the added knowledge we now have of good and evil. They were commanded to have children and that commandment is still in full force, even though there are both good and evil ways of going about it.

God blessed them and said, be fruitful and multiply. Having children was a blessing given to Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall. God does not require us to sin against Him to be blessed.

[Ahab]

Yes, we will never agree here. There is but One God, there isn't a pantheon of gods/goddesses.

One God but more than one person who is God. We already agree on this issue, even though some say Gods/gods when it would be more politically correct to refer to them as persons who are God.

But your belief infers that one cannot have perfect love in heaven, in Christ, without marriage. Love is given a caveat then, no?

No. You'll be able to have a perfect love of God and Christ even if you don't have your own children, or your own spouse. You just won't have a spouse to have any of your own children with, thus there will be some things you'll be missing out on even though you will have a perfect love for some people.

The rest of LDS belief, of God procreating...sorry, just looks like more pagan ideas to me.

What do you actually mean by "pagan", anyway? Just an idea that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

We are actually the children of God (our Eternal Father), whether or not we are born again through Jesus Christ whereby he also becomes our Father. What makes you think God having children, or offspring, is a pagan idea? And what does that have to do with whether or not it is true?

You know, I love my family, but the idea perfect love and happiness isn't found in God, and God alone, is counter to everything in Scripture. I'm not trying to be offensive, but this statement really makes me think that marriage has become a god itself in Mormonism.

If you don't want to think about becoming like God you can instead think about the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall. That's what we're going to be like, just as Jesus was in that condition after his resurrection. His atonement was all about restoring us to that condition. And God saw that it was not good for man to be alone even though he had God to be with.

God blessed them and said, be fruitful and multiply. Having children was a blessing given to Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall. God does not require us to sin against Him to be blessed.

The point is that without each of them having each other as a spouse they wouldn't have been able to have their own children, since it's not something either one of them could have done with just their own body. They needed each other to be able to have children, just as you'll also need your own spouse if you want to have any of your own children. Thus, the importance of marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

No LDS talks about a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. There is but one God that we have anything to do with. More to the point we are to become like God. To be one with him as Christ is one with the Father.

We don't believe that extending our circle of love somehow limits our love of God.

If we are Gods' spirit children how is him procreating us paganism?

Utter nonsense.

Who said anything about sinning against God? The first commandment given to A&E was to be multiply and replenish the earth. The second was to cleave unto each other and no one else. Those commandments has never been rescinded

[saemo]

One God but more than one person who is God. We already agree on this issue, even though some say Gods/gods when it would be more politically correct to refer to them as persons who are God.

No. You'll be able to have a perfect love of God and Christ even if you don't have your own children, or your own spouse. You just won't have a spouse to have any of your own children with, thus there will be some things you'll be missing out on even though you will have a perfect love for some people.

I understand that is what you believe.

What do you actually mean by "pagan", anyway? Just an idea that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

The term is used as the equivalent of polytheism.

We are actually the children of God (our Eternal Father), whether or not we are born again through Jesus Christ whereby he also becomes our Father. What makes you think God having children, or offspring, is a pagan idea? And what does that have to do with whether or not it is true?

Polytheism includes the idea of gods, goddesses, demigods, etc. These are not Christian ideas, indeed, Christianity abolishes them entirely. St. Paul, in his time and culture, referred to Greek and non-Greek. Greek=polytheistic religions, non-Greek=Judaism and Christianity.

If you don't want to think about becoming like God you can instead think about the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall. That's what we're going to be like, just as Jesus was in that condition after his resurrection. His atonement was all about restoring us to that condition. And God saw that it was not good for man to be alone even though he had God to be with.

I agree.

The point is that without each of them having each other as a spouse they wouldn't have been able to have their own children, since it's not something either one of them could have done with just their own body. They needed each other to be able to have children, just as you'll also need your own spouse if you want to have any of your own children. Thus, the importance of marriage.

I agree, but this doesn't have anything to do with heaven.

Edited February 26, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

No LDS talks about a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

Pantheon, being a group of gods/goddesses, which in LDS thought and belief, exists.

There is but one God that we have anything to do with.

Yes, I understand that. But that is where I see error. There is One God. Period.

More to the point we are to become like God. To be one with him as Christ is one with the Father.

Share in the divine nature, yes, we aren't that nature and don't become that nature.

We don't believe that extending our circle of love somehow limits our love of God.

And I don't believe that abiding in Christ, and Christ alone, limits what life in heaven with God will be like.

If we are Gods' spirit children how is him procreating us paganism?

We are created by God, and are made His children by adoption, through Jesus Christ.

Gods/goddesses procreating is a indication of polytheistic belief.

Who said anything about sinning against God? The first commandment given to A&E was to be multiply and replenish the earth. The second was to cleave unto each other and no one else. Those commandments has never been rescinded

I see, God blessed them, not commanded them. But OK.

[Ahab]

I agree, but this doesn't have anything to do with heaven.

What do you think heaven is? This Earth is going to be restored to its condition as it was before the Fall, and this will be heaven for some people. Other people who won't stay here will go to some other place, a real place, somewhere else in the universe,a nd that will be heaven for them. What do you think heaven will be like? Do you realize that whereever it is it is an actual place, where people will be, either married or not married to each other? Do you want to have a spouse there? If you do, it is possible, but you'll have to do what it takes for you to have one, and if you don't do what it takes for you to have one, then you won't have one.

[thesometimesaint]

Pantheon, being a group of gods/goddesses, which in LDS thought and belief, exists.

Yes, I understand that. But that is where I see error. There is One God. Period.

Share in the divine nature, yes, we aren't that nature and don't become that nature.

And I don't believe that abiding in Christ, and Christ alone, limits what life in heaven with God will be like.

We are created by God, and are made His children by adoption, through Jesus Christ.

Gods/goddesses procreating is a indication of polytheistic belief.

I see, God blessed them, not commanded them. But OK.

Please stop with that old canard that the Saints are polytheistic. Such was used by Jews and Muslims alike to disparage Christians.

The LDS are no more polytheist than any other Christian sect.

SEE John 17

Further there is only one God with which we have anything to do with is biblical.

SEE 1 Corinthians 8:5

You are beset by Gods, and you are a God already.

SEE Genesis 3:22

Abiding in Christ is fine. But without love for our fellow man our love is worthless.

Is not Christ a God?

Apparently not by God whom commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth.

[mfbukowski]

In short, marriage is fulfilled in heaven, not exterminated.

Then why don't Catholics include that in their vows?

[Calm]

If the marriage was entered with the intent to be "open", then no, I don't view that as a valid marriage. If the marriage was originally made with the intent for marital fidelity, and later changed the acceptance of additional sexual partners, that is called adultery (called that no matter what, just to be clear). The marriage itself isn't made invalid, but has become disordered (no doubt). The scenario then becomes one of "what ifs", which we could go through all day I think!

Yes. (Sorry I put no at first because I misread "invalid" as "valid". Edited to fix my misreading.)

If that was the person's intent at the time of the marriage, I wouldn't view it as a valid marriage. If the intent was there, and the person changed their mind later, then I view the relationship as broken. Not in terms of the marriage is made invalid, but the relationship is suffering.

I think we are pretty much on the same page on this issue.

[Calm]

I see it as making marriage a means to an end (exaltation), rather than seeing it as the end itself.

I think you have misunderstood the LDS view then. Eternal marriage is not about just one more step or ordinance to follow through on so as to achieve exaltation, eternal marriage is about taking one's marriage and committing to it for eternity in all the dimensions that the relationship will go through because one values that relationship so highly. LDS see it as adding to the quality of the marriage itself and even if it had nothing to do with exaltation would be a desirable attribute of our marriage.

[Ahab]

I think you have misunderstood the LDS view then. Eternal marriage is not about just one more step or ordinance to follow through on so as to achieve exaltation, eternal marriage is about taking one's marriage and committing to it for eternity in all the dimensions that the relationship will go through because one values that relationship so highly. LDS see it as adding to the quality of the marriage itself and even if it had nothing to do with exaltation would be a desirable attribute of our marriage.

Exactly. It's like, if you like it, why would you ever want it to end? Why think it will end? Will it ever end? What about it would make it come to an end? What can I do to make sure it will never end, and instead last forever? And how does God play a part in helping us to remain one forever?