Temple wedding policies

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it that, in your case, at least, the Church leaders could be as explicit as one could reasonably expect them to be with regard to the policy reflecting the will of God and  you would still accuse them of being on the wrong path. Presumably, you would hold that position no matter what they did. Thank you for your candor.

Yes. I can only follow the evidence and the spirit as it works in my life. I take responsibility for my life and expect to be judged accordingly.

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an unrealistic expectation. With any given person, there is a blending of good choices and poor choices. To put it another way, one person's poor choice does not necessarily indicate that all his choices will be bad.

 

I don't follow you here, but that is not necessarily to my greater point.

Quote

In response to someone's question earlier in this thread, I already responded that if the Brethren should change the policy, I would support them in it.

That's not the question (I understand that you fully support the brethren). Allowing something isn't the same as endorsing it. If the brethren dropped the requirement of tithing from the temple recommend interview, but kept all other teachings the same, I assume you'd still pay tithing since you see the good fruit from paying tithing in your life. Tithing payment is emphasized in church lessons, conference talks etc. Whether or not the church has a policy that requires tithing payments to go to the temple does not change the fact that paying tithing can bring forth good fruit in your life. If the policy were changed to allow for sealings after a civil ceremony would you take advantage of this to keep the peace with your future in-laws or would you exclude them from the marriage? It's a simple question. If the policy bears good fruit in and of itself, then the obvious answer would be that you would be that you would shun your future in-laws regardless of the possibility of life-long hard feelings and get married in the temple.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. These are even better than the one I cited.

 

I mean, I still can understand and respect people who disagree with him and /or the current policy. What I have struggled with throughout this thread is the dogged insistence that there is "no justification" for prioritizing a temple marriage.  It seems dishonest to me, but maybe it's just (un)intentional blindness.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I missed this. I was two years old at the time the talk was given at Ricks College 41 years ago and my memory must have failed me. How could I have missed this? (Thanks, Scott for posting a link)

Pres. Kimball seems to be talking primarily about marrying outside the faith or to an unworthy member, neither of which can go to the temple to be sealed. He is comparing celestial marriage (temple sealing) with a temporal marriage. Why would anyone want to choose a marriage that ends at death? As with others, this seems to be missing the point that a person can be both married civilly and sealed eternally. We know this because it happens throughout the church (in other countries). It's not an either/or. Kimball is talking about sealing, not a legal marriage ceremony. Of course "celestial marriage" was originally a euphemism for plural marriage, and who wouldn't want that? Right?

 

 

 

It turns out that klindley had linked to two other talks that I had been unaware of but are excellent also (I hope you saw his follow-up post).

In glancing at these talks (I will study them more carefully later) I am reminded that the principle taught by the Church for as long as I can remember is that people in the Church should have as their goal to be married in the temple if and when they can, and that they should not let anything or anyone deter them from reaching that goal.

It strikes me that the moment the Brethren commence carving out exceptions to this principle for this or that circumstance, it immediately begins to weaken the principle and sets us on a slippery slope of making excuses for not abiding by it. In their divinely inspired wisdom they have elected not to do this.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I mean, I still can understand and respect people who disagree with him and /or the current policy. What I have struggled with throughout this thread is the dogged insistence that there is "no justification" for prioritizing a temple marriage.  It seems dishonest to me, but maybe it's just (un)intentional blindness.

I haven't seen anyone prioritize a temporal marriage over a sealing.

What we are arguing, and you are not grasping, is that if the policy did not exist as it does, a person could be married by a bishop, justice of the peace etc, and then immediately be sealed for eternity. It is only an either/or decision (in the US and Canada) because the church has created that situation via the policy.

A temple marriage is only a temporal marriage, just like any performed outside of the temple. The Sealing is what makes it eternal. It is the sealing that creates a "celestial marriage". The "legal marriage" part in the temple isn't really anything more important than a legal marriage performed elsewhere. It's all about the sealing, which is being postponed in these situations because of the policy.

 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I missed this. I was two years old at the time the talk was given at Ricks College 41 years ago and my memory must have failed me. How could I have missed this? (Thanks, Scott for posting a link)

Pres. Kimball seems to be talking primarily about marrying outside the faith or to an unworthy member, neither of which can go to the temple to be sealed. He is comparing celestial marriage (temple sealing) with a temporal marriage. Why would anyone want to choose a marriage that ends at death? As with others, this seems to be missing the point that a person can be both married civilly and sealed eternally. We know this because it happens throughout the church (in other countries). It's not an either/or. Kimball is talking about sealing, not a legal marriage ceremony. Of course "celestial marriage" was originally a euphemism for plural marriage, and who wouldn't want that? Right?

 

 

 

In the BYU one that Kllindley linked to Kimball does address members (who grew up members) who chose not to marry in temple.  He mentions one couple who did so and then died 3 hours after their civil ceremony and how it is not a given that God will ever allow them to embrace those blessings in the afterlife when they rejected them while alive.  He goes over quite thoroughly that temple work for the dead is for those who did not have the opportunity to have it done while alive and not for those who had the opportunity but didn't take it.  I think he leaves the ultimate resolution in God's judgment, just stating what the scriptures say about it.

However, he does not address the specific example of someone choosing a civil ceremony for nonmember parents.  Not that I saw anyway (I read some parts and skimmed others).

Edited May 25, 2017 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It turns out that klindley had linked to two other talks that I had been unaware of but are excellent also (I hope you saw his follow-up post).

In glancing at these talks (I will study them more carefully later) I am reminded that the principle taught by the Church for as long as I can remember is that people in the Church should have as their goal to be married in the temple if and when they can, and that they should not let anything or anyone deter them from reaching that goal.

It strikes me that the moment the Brethren commence carving out exceptions to this principle for this or that circumstance, it immediately begins to weaken the principle and sets us on a slippery slope of making excuses for not abiding by it. In their divinely inspired wisdom they have elected not to do this.

 

Temple marriage is not the goal. Temple sealing is. That is what is eternal.

If a couple decides to be married for time (both have been previously married and sealed to other spouses), do they receive any additional blessings for being married for time in the temple versus being married for time by the bishop or judge? A marriage in the temple is no different than a marriage outside the temple EXCEPT for when it is combined with the sealing.

If there are special blessings for a temporal marriage in the temple that non-temple marriages don't receive, I may change my mind.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Do you think that this is overtly the consideration, in secret council, with the Brethren? Or, do you think that this is the practical outcome, but that they, in their minds, see it as something more doctrinally fundamental?

Practical outcome.  I don't believe the Brethren have given it a ton of consideration.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. I can only follow the evidence and the spirit as it works in my life. I take responsibility for my life and expect to be judged accordingly.

OK.

But at some point one has to wonder what good it is to believe that God gives ongoing revelation and direction to HIs people through living prophets if one is only willing to accept those things the prophets say that coincide with one's already existing positions and beliefs.

Quote

I don't follow you here, but that is not necessarily to my greater point.

Then perhaps I don't follow your point. Weren't you intimating that, if choosing to marry outside the temple is the wrong choice, one who does so could be expected to continually make wrong choices thereafter?

 

Quote

That's not the question (I understand that you fully support the brethren). Allowing something isn't the same as endorsing it. If the brethren dropped the requirement of tithing from the temple recommend interview, but kept all other teachings the same, I assume you'd still pay tithing since you see the good fruit from paying tithing in your life. Tithing payment is emphasized in church lessons, conference talks etc. Whether or not the church has a policy that requires tithing payments to go to the temple does not change the fact that paying tithing can bring forth good fruit in your life. If the policy were changed to allow for sealings after a civil ceremony would you take advantage of this to keep the peace with your future in-laws or would you exclude them from the marriage? It's a simple question. If the policy bears good fruit in and of itself, then the obvious answer would be that you would be that you would shun your future in-laws regardless of the possibility of life-long hard feelings and get married in the temple.

It would depend very much on the circumstances, and hence, I can't answer it as a hypothetical. If it was the heart's desire of my intended bride to be married in the temple and to never allow anything to deter her from that goal, I would very much be in sympathy with that (it would be my goal as well) and I would readily coincide with her wishes, even if it were not to the liking of the future in-laws.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Practical outcome.  I don't believe the Brethren have given it a ton of consideration.

You have absolutely no basis for that supposition.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

In the BYU one that Kllindley linked to Kimball does address members (who grew up members) who chose not to marry in temple.  He mentions one couple who did so and then died 3 hours after their civil ceremony and how it is not a given that God will ever allow them to embrace those blessings in the afterlife when they rejected them while alive.  He goes over quite thoroughly that temple work for the dead is for those who did not have the opportunity to have it done while alive and to for those who had the opportunity but didn't take it.  I think he leaves the ultimate resolution in God's judgment, just stating what the scriptures say about it.

However, he does not address the specific example of someone choosing a civil ceremony for nonmember parents.  Not that I saw anyway (I read some parts and skimmed others).

I'm curious about your opinion on the post above. I think most of this disagreement is about a confusion about use of the word "marriage" where the church really means sealing. The sealing is what is most important, not the legal marriage.

I haven't fully read both of the other talks (besides the Ricks college one) but I find the story about the couple who died 3 hours after their wedding and the implication that they were rebellious and therefore unlikely to have an eternal sealing posthumously to be a very cold and heartless statement. Having said that, I think it's clear that even Pres. Kimball doesn't know how this works.

The examples I read were about a member marrying a non-member or an "unworthy" member, thus rejecting the change for an eternal sealing. Again, that is not the case where a "worthy" couple desires to be sealed immediately following a civil ceremony. If they fully intend to do the sealing, I can't see how that is a rejection of the sealing. That makes no sense, even if they are killed on the way to the temple.

 

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know others disagree, but I don't think we need it.  Because I believe that God is behind the 12 apostles and the prophet, I don't think it's necessary to have proof that God is behind every practice or policy.  

I believe God has endorsed those men and authorized them to do things in His name, even in His absence (for lack of a better way to say it).  I believe God can (and will) redirect when necessary.  I don't think there's anything wrong with not agreeing with a policy or asking for it to change.  From my perspective the trouble is when people assign evil motives to our leaders because they see things differently than our leaders do.  

 

I completely agree.  Thanks.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In the BYU one that Kllindley linked to Kimball does address members (who grew up members) who chose not to marry in temple.  He mentions one couple who did so and then died 3 hours after their civil ceremony and how it is not a given that God will ever allow them to embrace those blessings in the afterlife when they rejected them while alive.  He goes over quite thoroughly that temple work for the dead is for those who did not have the opportunity to have it done while alive and not for those who had the opportunity but didn't take it.  I think he leaves the ultimate resolution in God's judgment, just stating what the scriptures say about it.

However, he does not address the specific example of someone choosing a civil ceremony for nonmember parents.  Not that I saw anyway (I read some parts and skimmed others).

I found that one especially ironic since President Kimball choose not to be married in the temple.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Temple marriage is not the goal. Temple sealing is. That is what is eternal.

If a couple decides to be married for time (both have been previously married and sealed to other spouses), do they receive any additional blessings for being married for time in the temple versus being married for time by the bishop or judge? A marriage in the temple is no different than a marriage outside the temple EXCEPT for when it is combined with the sealing.

If there are special blessings for a temporal marriage in the temple that non-temple marriages don't receive, I may change my mind.

 

I believe the blessings comes from the choice they made in the first instance to follow inspired direction given through a prophet of God, even though a poor choice can perhaps be rectified later through repentance.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the blessings comes from the choice they made in the first instance to follow inspired direction given through a prophet of God, even though a poor choice can perhaps be rectified later through repentance.

So it's not about the sealing, but rather showing loyalty and obedience to the leadership, right?

That's what I've been saying but I don't think it's what you're trying to say.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious about your opinion on the post above. I think most of this disagreement is about a confusion about use of the word "marriage" where the church really means sealing. The sealing is what is most important, not the legal marriage.

I haven't fully read both of the other talks (besides the Ricks college one) but I find the story about the couple who died 3 hours after their wedding and the implication that they were rebellious and therefore unlikely to have an eternal sealing posthumously to be a very cold and heartless statement. Having said that, I think it's clear that even Pres. Kimball doesn't know how this works.

The examples I read were about a member marrying a non-member or an "unworthy" member, thus rejecting the change for an eternal sealing. Again, that is not the case where a "worthy" couple desires to be sealed immediately following a civil ceremony. If they fully intend to do the sealing, I can't see how that is a rejection of the sealing. That makes no sense, even if they are killed on the way to the temple.

 

It makes sense in terms of setting a righteous goal and not allowing anything to interfere with it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it's not about the sealing, but rather showing loyalty and obedience to the leadership, right?

That's what I've been saying but I don't think it's what you're trying to say.

It's about showing loyalty and obedience to the will of God as expressed through revelation to HIs anointed servants.

 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious about your opinion on the post above. I think most of this disagreement is about a confusion about use of the word "marriage" where the church really means sealing. The sealing is what is most important, not the legal marriage.

I haven't fully read both of the other talks (besides the Ricks college one) but I find the story about the couple who died 3 hours after their wedding and the implication that they were rebellious and therefore unlikely to have an eternal sealing posthumously to be a very cold and heartless statement. Having said that, I think it's clear that even Pres. Kimball doesn't know how this works.

The examples I read were about a member marrying a non-member or an "unworthy" member, thus rejecting the change for an eternal sealing. Again, that is not the case where a "worthy" couple desires to be sealed immediately following a civil ceremony. If they fully intend to do the sealing, I can't see how that is a rejection of the sealing. That makes no sense, even if they are killed on the way to the temple.

This is what he says about it-

Remember, the temples of God are not for the vicarious temple ordinances for those who have known the gospel. I’m sure we misunderstand that. Those who live as you have lived for twenty years—as some of you will live for forty years and eighty years—this vicarious temple work isn’t for you. You do your work yourselves. That’s your job, to go up to the temple and get your endowments when you’re properly matured—your job, not your parents’ job or the responsibility of people after them, to give you blessings or even to open the door to blessings for you if you are not interested enough to get them for yourself. It’s for your grandfather and your great-great-grandparents and my great-great-grandparents. Those are the ones we go to the temple for. Those are the ones we do the work for, those who were born when there was no gospel on the earth, when there was no temple or idea of a temple.  

God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. And people who close their eyes and their ears and fail to follow the commandments of God are dead. They’re dead as to all the things that are worthy: dead as to the benefits, dead as to the blessings, dead as to this natural and eternal gift.

Temple sealings are for your ancestors, the people who could have traveled all over the world and never found a temple or a temple president or helpers to take them through and give them their endowments—people who were good, good as you and I are good, or better, and who may have neared perfection in their lives. But there were no temples; there were no temple workers. They had to wait. We must do their work for them. That’s why we have our genealogical work. That’s why we have the temple.

We go forward and we have the work done for those who die. But we have no guarantee that anyone will ever receive the gospel when we do it for him after his death. We hope he will; we go forward and we hope that he will accept the gospel. But we have no assurance whatever that he will ever accept it. For people are very much the same when they arise from the resurrection as they are on the day they were buried. It’s for them to accept it; and it’s for you to accept it, today, while you live, while you can, while you have your own free agency.

Our Lord is not the God of the dead. Those who marry civilly by secular means to avoid the restrictions in dress by reason of the garments, or by reason of restrictions as to divorce, fun, freedoms, so-called, are postponing to their own peril. Are not they the dead? Remember, our temple work is for those who have passed on without opportunity, not for those who have had opportunity and rejected it. There’s a tremendous difference between him who misses the blessing and him who rejects the blessing. Men of our day calculate and evaluate and develop opinions and “kick against the pricks” and close the door to their own opportunities. You won’t do that, will you? These people are like the Pharisees, the Sadducees. They are like the Pharisees and the hypocrites and the scribes who “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matthew 23: 13).

And-

I remember an article in a local newspaper, telling of a young couple married in Salt Lake by a man who had only civil authority—no power beyond the grave. They had a brilliant wedding breakfast. They got into the car to travel to another city for an evening wedding reception, where hundreds of friends and relatives would come to wish them well. They did not reach their destination. There was no reception. A car accident took their lives. Their mortality was ended. An eternal life had not been provided for. About three hours of marriage, and the end of it came like a flash of lightning. And the sad thing was that their three-hour marriage was performed within a mile of the holy Temple, where a man with the sealing power would gladly have saved them from the bitter cup.

They’re in eternity now. I don’t know what they’re thinking or what they’re doing, but they’re not prepared for eternity. They had grown to twenty years or more of life and they didn’t go to the temple, even though they were members of the Church. They ignored it. They left it. If they ever gave a serious thought, do you suppose they were saying, “Oh, we can have the sealing ordinance performed later”? Do you suppose the bereaved family was thinking, “Well, it’s too bad; but then, we can go to the temple in a year and have the work done for them”?

Yes, the family can go to the temple a year later. Yes, they can do the ordinance work for them. And the records will show it. But the question is, Will the young deceased couple accept the ordinances when they were of such little consequence to them while they lived? And more important than all else, do you think that God is going to be mocked? He is the God of the living, not of the dead. And they were dead, both physically and also, it would seem, spiritually. He has identified this ordinance as one to be done in mortality while you have your body and your spirit together. Perhaps not any scripture emanating from the mouth of God has been so definite and positive and unchangeable as those we are quoting. It has been said that we rise from the grave much as we lie down in it. We change little in our attitudes and moods and desires in that period when our spirit is freed from our body that is in the grave. The process of change in the body does not necessarily change the inner man. If the gospel truths mean little to us as we die, they are not likely to mean very much to us when we rise.

 

I think it's really interesting that he said that temple sealing are for our ancestors and not for us.  To me, that means that he sees no confusion between marriage and sealing.  Temple marriage is for the living and temple sealing are for the dead or those who otherwise did not have the ability to choose to get one when the marriage took place.  

We assume that the church really means temple sealing when it says temple marriage, but I think this talk is evidence that we are wrong in that assumption.  The church sees a difference between a temple marriage and a temple sealing, and its a difference that stems from our use of agency.  

If that's true, then the policy makes a lot more sense.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I found that one especially ironic since President Kimball choose not to be married in the temple.

What was his reason for making this choice, do you know?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I found that one especially ironic since President Kimball choose not to be married in the temple.

Interesting.  Why did he choose not to be married in the temple?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's really interesting that he said that temple sealing are for our ancestors and not for us.  To me, that means that he sees no confusion between marriage and sealing.  Temple marriage is for the living and temple sealing are for the dead or those who otherwise did not have the ability to choose to get one when the marriage took place.  

We assume that the church really means temple sealing when it says temple marriage, but I think this talk is evidence that we are wrong in that assumption.  The church sees a difference between a temple marriage and a temple sealing, and its a difference that stems from our use of agency.  

If that's true, then the policy makes a lot more sense.

I didn't get this same conclusion when I read what you quoted from President Kimball.  I understand his teaching that the temple sealing is for our ancestors.  But I don't understand what you are saying he taught about the difference between temple marriage and a temple sealing.  Could you elaborate your interpretation of this?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

What was his reason for making this choice, do you know?

I don't think he is on record as saying. The trip from Arizona to St George was long, but if you have the right priorities you can make it work... Especially since the brethren were apparently expecting East Coasters to come to Utah in the early 70s per https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/06/information-for-brides-and-grooms-planning-a-temple-marriage?lang=eng

[rockpond]

From Wikipedia:

"Kimball and Eyring's relationship deepened quickly, and by late October they had decided to marry. Because of their employment commitments and lack of money, the couple could not afford to travel to the nearest LDS temple (in Utah). They were married in a civil ceremony in Camilla's home in Pima, Arizona on November 16, 1917.^[10] Seven months later, the couple made the two-day journey by train to Salt Lake City where they were sealed in the Salt Lake Temple on June 7, 1918. They eventually had four children: Spencer L. "Spence" (1918–2003), Olive Beth "Bobby" (b. 1922), Andrew E. (b. 1927), and Edward L. "Ed" (1930–2016)."

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by rockpond

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's really interesting that he said that temple sealing are for our ancestors and not for us.  To me, that means that he sees no confusion between marriage and sealing.  Temple marriage is for the living and temple sealing are for the dead or those who otherwise did not have the ability to choose to get one when the marriage took place.  

We assume that the church really means temple sealing when it says temple marriage, but I think this talk is evidence that we are wrong in that assumption.  The church sees a difference between a temple marriage and a temple sealing, and its a difference that stems from our use of agency.  

If that's true, then the policy makes a lot more sense.

This really doesn't make any sense to me. Temple marriage is only eternal because of the sealing. Can you explain the benefits and blessings of a Temple marriage that doesn't include the sealing?

I think of the marriage and sealing are more like baptism and confirmation; 2 separate pieces of the same ordinance but the first only has lasting impact if it is followed by the 2nd. I don't see any value in a temple marriage without a sealing that is better than a non-temple marriage without sealing.

I think Pres. Kimball is conflating the two things because they are so closely tied together. But marriage and sealing are clearly different things.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Wikipedia:

"Kimball and Eyring's relationship deepened quickly, and by late October they had decided to marry. Because of their employment commitments and lack of money, the couple could not afford to travel to the nearest LDS temple (in Utah). They were married in a civil ceremony in Camilla's home in Pima, Arizona on November 16, 1917.^[10] Seven months later, the couple made the two-day journey by train to Salt Lake City where they were sealed in the Salt Lake Temple on June 7, 1918. They eventually had four children: Spencer L. "Spence" (1918–2003), Olive Beth "Bobby" (b. 1922), Andrew E. (b. 1927), and Edward L. "Ed" (1930–2016)."

 

So according to the current policy, Pres. Kimball could not have been married civilly and then sealed 7 months later. Again, there is no evidence I've seen that this policy is doctrinal. It's a policy aimed at testing loyalty and obedience (as Scott attested to earlier).

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't get this same conclusion when I read what you quoted from President Kimball.  I understand his teaching that the temple sealing is for our ancestors.  But I don't understand what you are saying he taught about the difference between temple marriage and a temple sealing.  Could you elaborate your interpretation of this?

I'm not sure how else to understand him.  If your bishop knew you were getting married and was talking to you about the event--and if you knew he really wanted you to get married in the temple--if he said "temple sealings are for your ancestors, not you" what would you understand him to be saying?

The only way i can think of to understand is that the bishop believes that temple sealing and temple marriage are not the same thing.  One if for the dead/ignorant and the other is for the living.