Here is something to think about that came up based on this thread. What if you were in a country that left relationships be up to the decision of the two involved and there was no such thing as a marriage ceremony? How would the Church handle something like that? By the way, I am sure there are such cultures although I do not know any off hand at the moment save for what happened during George Washington's era.
QUOTE |
What if you were in a country that left relationships be up to the decision of the two involved and there was no such thing as a marriage ceremony? How would the Church handle something like that? |
Perhaps the question should be: What is the difference between a marriage that is recognised by God and one that is not?
Now, I'm not talking about the Temple. I'm talking about marriage for time only. I am of the opinion that mutual consent and a witnessed agreement and (possibly) a public ceremony are key factors.
What think ye?
Dubhdara.
QUOTE |
What is the difference between a marriage that is recognised by God and one that is not? |
Well, the Church will have to obey the law of the land of course (even though, I would submit, marriage is a religious and not a political ceremony/event) but I was looking at it from the point of view of what is right and wrong (I.e. If governments were not involved).
To the original question - no, I don't think two people just deciding to consider themselves married can be all there is to it because there would be no such thing as "Living in sin"/fornication/pre-marital sex and even the Bible mentions that set in a time when the Government did not have licenses).
How would the Church handle it? Well, I think it would require a ceremony/witnesses/agreement!
Though I must admit I do find the idea that the Lord recognises (or at least has His church recognise) government licenses even though the "Man and wife" may be as dubious in their relationship as the one you propose...but I'll try to stop going off thread now
Dubhdara.
Bishops have the authority to marry couples for time. If there is no need for a government license, the Church would probably still issue bishops a formal statement of the ecclesiastical authority to perform this act. Then, if there is no such thing as civil marriage in the country in question, couples would probably be required to have their marriages ratified by a bishop. The Church would probably require AT LEAST a ceremony of an official nature with two witnesses present to verify it.
In one state in the U.S. (I can't remember which at the moment), if you register in a hotel as Mr. and Mrs. ___________, you are legally married. Would the Church accept that? No. There must be documentation and witnesses.
Well, it would seem to me that the Church in this case would have to look for Temple Marriage and nothing else. When you marry for time it is based on a law of the land, but since in this 'what if' situation the law of the land has no bearing on relationships then it would be only the Church's Doctrine that would dictate marriage is necessary. The only marriage the Gospel offers is Celestial Marriage unless the Temple Marriage for Time Only has some special words of which I am not aware. Given the recent fight for Amendments for Marriage this is food for thought (covered more in the other Thread), but it helps you to see why the Church is so interested in it.
When Joseph Smith organized the Church, there was no law in the land concerning marriage. When he instituted plural marriage, there was no law in the land concerning marriage. It wasn't until the 1930s, when President Grant changed the Endowment and Sealing, that the law of the land was required in order to be sealed.
So, if a person lived in a land where there was no law concerning marriage, it seems to me that whatever social tradition is practiced there would suffice.
But I am probably wrong.