Inside a Mormon Temple Wedding

That is all nice and good. The difficulty I see is that, if I understand matters correctly, the couple is given to understand that a proper marriage will be a temple marriage; no real blessing will happen, kingdom-wise unless this very elaborate and very costly wedding occurs. Am I right? It sounds like Rome all over again, which, ironically, Smith deplored. If I’m on the right track, you might want to consider Luther’s pamphlet, “Babylonian Captivity,” in which he decries the seven sacraments of the church and how Rome used these as a chain to bind the consciences of the Christian as to what is holy and what is profane. As much as marriages have been consummated and been holy in God’s sight from the beginning–w.o temple rites–it is unreasonable and unScriptural to mandate or bind the minds of Christians in that way. FWIW.

Otherwise, your thoughts were very profound. Thanks for sharing.

LikeLike

Thanks very much for the peek inside.
Critics of the Mormon Church have made the temples spooky. I don’t see anything spooky about what you’ve described.

Many Mormons have told me the presence of the Lord is stronger in the temples than in an ordinary Mormon chapel. GraceforGrace has confirmed this.

I have two questions: Can you tell us what the Lord spoke to you? Are LDS folks more open about what takes place in a temple than they used to be?

Concerning the eternal nature of the wedding, I know we’ll be reunited with loved ones—with the loved ones who die with faith still in their hearts—but in Mark 12:18-25 where the Sadducees asked Jesus which man will be the husband of a woman who had seven husbands, he responded, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will all be like the angels in heaven.”

Jesus made it sound like marriage will be ended. Do angels marry? Maybe someone can explain this. Does the Book of Mormon have anything to say about eternal marriage?

In any case, I don’t see it as a big issue. What does matter more is the fact that Christians like myself can’t get a temple recommend and aren’t allowed into the temples. This rule solidifies the division between us.

Maybe I’ll organize a protest outside a temple. . . . on second thought, I’ll just pray—it works better.

LikeLike

Cal,

Two things to keep in mind here when reading what Christ told his critics. Eternal marriage is a very sacred thing and for that reason there is not a lot of general talk about it, and Jesus viewed it the same way back then, so he is not going to try and get into the details with those trying to find fault with his teachings. So it was sufficient for them that he explained that abiding by that law was not what brought eternal marriage.

Also we know that not everyone is the same in the resurrection as Paul explained, some have the glory of the Sun, some of the moon and others of the stars. Part of that distinction of glory has to do with eternal relationships and marriage. For some the glory will be similar to that of angels who are not married. But the scriptures are clear that the promise for everyone is not to be equal with angels. For others, who are joint hairs with Christ (who is above the angels) their glory will be like that of the Sun, and in that state of joint hairs, neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

LikeLike

GraceforGrace & Jettboy,

Thanks for the FAIR document. I may save it.

I have looked it over. What it says about differentiating between being married and being given in marriage is something I had in the back of my mind when I originally brought up the eternal marriage issue. Because Jesus said “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage,” instead of, “marriages will not continue,” I had a bit of doubt in my mind that the evangelical view could be biblically proven.

Jettboy said some things worth considering, so I reexamined the story of the Sadducees’ challenge of Jesus in Matthew 22:23-33 and checked commentaries I have.

Before I get to the thoughts that came out of my reexamination, I’d first like to say something about what I believe to be the lack of importance of our differences over eternal marriage. There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible about the value of being able to determine the level of importance of things. For example, Romans 14:1 (NIV) says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” Then it gives an example: “One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” A wise man can tell the difference between a vital teaching and a fringe issue.

Suppose for a minute that Jesus was in fact eliminating marriage from the next life. Then how come the Holy Spirit shows up in the temples during eternal marriage (you call it sealing) ceremonies?

Tell me if I’m wrong, but my conviction is that the sealing ceremonies, although not perfectly according to God’s truth in every way, are a celebration of marriage and love, which God loves and instituted. I imagine also that the minister is man in whose heart the Spirit lives in abundance, and that what he says is said to glorify the heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, most of the people attending are God-honoring Christians who have an expectation that God will show up and bless the ceremony. Romans 14:5-6 says, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Because thanks is given to God, God shows up at the sealings. He doesn’t require a perfect faith or a perfect doctrine, but when he is honored, he is pleased and shows up. Hence, GraceforGrace felt peace.

——–
OK, now back to the thoughts that came to me from my reexamination of Matthew 22:23-33. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but you did ask for my thoughts.

One thing I discovered was Romans 7:2 where it says that “a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.” In light of this verse, one might say that if a marriage of this present age was going to continue in the next life, the marriage would have to be renewed, since death ends it according to the law of Moses. This might explain why Jesus said, “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage,” instead of, “marriages will not continue.” Do you see what I’m saying? Perhaps the Sadducees knew the law ended marriage at death, and Jesus knew that they knew, so he spoke of a restarting of the covenant of marriage in eternity.

Anyway, learning that, took care of my little hang up of doubt about whether Matthew 22 eliminates eternal marriage. Romans 7:2 also counteracts the third point of the FAIR article. (Not that I’m 100% positive that the evangelical view is correct. I have to leave a little room for teachability unless I’m super-positive!)

I do agree with the first two points made in the FAIR article.
Number One was that modern “revelation isn’t necessarily biblicist in nature, rather it is through a prophet’s revelation.” What they explained, as I recall, is that there doesn’t have to be biblical support for a doctrine, only that a doctrine cannot disagree with the Bible. I’ll go along with that.

The second point made by the FAIR article is that the Sadducees were trying to set Jesus up. Jettboy mentioned this as well. My NIBC commentary agrees. It says they were trying to make fun of Jesus’ belief in a resurrection.

Take care, brothers.

LikeLike

Thanks, Grace, for your explanations. That’s a good point that “our minds are challenged and our Spirits enlarged as we worship without everything being revealed all at once.”

Is that one reason temple rituals are kept under wraps? I don’t understand that. Don Piper testifies in his book “90 Minutes in Heaven” that for many years he didn’t tell anyone—not even his wife—about his experience in heaven. He said it was sacred to him. Then one day a friend convinced him that his story could be a blessing to others if he told others. Now 100s of thousands of others have been blessed by his story as his book is a big seller.

Are you recommending Rough Stone Rolling to Doug and me? His summer is already tied up reading a book I recommended to him (ha, ha).

LikeLike

I’m making my way through ‘Rough Stone Rolling’ which only confirms my prior thoughts about Joseph Smith-he is a fascinating man. While I do not believe him to be a prophet of God-I find him very likable. At the same time he is not an easy man to grasp-I am unable to wrap my brain around him.. What is striking about the church, and this is mentioned in the book, is how similar in doctrine it was to the other churches around it when it was founded. The unique doctrines and beliefs that mark the LDS church come later in stages and some/much of it from BY. Having read portions of the BOM it seems to present God in a much more traditional way then the later revelations did. It is also striking that almost from the very beginning Joseph Smith had a powerful influence upon people-and they either loved him or wanted to harm him.

LikeLike

Thanks for your answer, Jettboy, . . . which was . . .
“How do I know? Because the spirit tells me so as I understand it working in me. His weaknesses are like of all men (save Jesus only) and his words and works have a completeness that of its own makes sense.”

I think you answered my question, but it wasn’t everything I was looking for—my fault, not yours.

I have to confess why I asked it:
The last time I met with a couple Mormon missionaries, I told them what I felt the Lord, over a years-long process of seeking his understanding from his Spirit, had shown me. And that was that if someone prays, “Is the Church true?” the Holy Spirit will impress on the seeker’s heart that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches a gospel that leads to forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a glorious life in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout eternity. In sum, “Yes, it is true.” (This explains what once puzzled me—their confidence that the Church IS true.)

Then I told the missionaries that if there was one thing I could get Mormons to do it would be this: to get them to pray specifically about each and every doctrine of Joseph Smith’s. That is, I would like them to ask the heavenly Father according to the principle laid down in James 1:5-8 and the corresponding verse in the Book of Mormon about each and every Mormon teaching, and not take a stance on any issue until the Holy Spirit has clearly spoken.

This takes time and devotion, pressing into God like his wisdom was a pearl of great price—which it is.

So my real question is, “Have you prayed specifically about each and every teaching of Joseph Smith?”

If Mormons will do that—and if non-Mormons do that sort of thing as well—then I believe with all my heart that our theological differences will come down. And the devil will be very unhappy. And God will be very happy!

What do you think? I mean God’s not going to tell you one thing and tell me something that’s opposed to it. He’s not like fleshly people who in the same breath say “Yes, yes,” and “No, no” (2 Cor. 1:17, NIV) (KJV says “yea yea, and nay nay”).

By the way, I hope you know that I celebrate your faith, and I know anyone can grow into a strong Christian right in the Church you’re in, loving one’s neighbor by the power of Christ’s Spirit almost as one loves one’s self. (Put a little smile after the word “almost.”)

(Once again, I said way more than I intended.) Take care.

LikeLike