This makes no sense to me.
My younger brother’s daughter–the family lives near Nashville, TN–will be married in about a month, at a local Mormon temple.
I read the invitation she sent to my Mom and me. From the way it is worded, the invitation is to the reception only; from what I have read, non-Mormons–whom Mormons refer to as “gentiles”–are not permitted in a Mormon temple, even if they are related to -someone getting married there. (In the Classmates website, my high school’s message board said that non-Mormons are prohibited by law–in Idaho–from entering a Mormon temple.)
This seems grossly unfair to the family of somone getting married.
I’m not a Mormon, but I seem to recall from previous discussions that both of the people getting married have to be in very good standing with the church in order to be married in a temple, so it’s probably usually the case that close family members would be able to attend.
And fairness isn’t always at the top of the list in church doctrine.
The Mormon ceremony operformed in a Temple is a “sealing”, but they often combine both sealings and weddings. And, yes, Mormon doctrine holds that only Mormons in good standing (those with a Temple Recommend) can enter a Temple.
Mormon weddings, if held outside a Temple (usually when the families are far away from an active Temple) can certainly be attended by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. I was a Best Man at such a non-Temple LDS wedding.
It does seem a bit provocative to have the ceremony shut up away from the guests, if a majority of them aren’t LDS. I don’t know what LDS thought and etiquette are on this, but if possible I think I’d hold separate wedding and sealing ceremonies in that case to minimize bruised feelings. But I’m not LDS.
As has been said, what takes place in the Temple is a “sealing,” which marries (or, 'seals") the couple for all eternity. The only people who can enter an LDS temple are people with a Temple Recommend – I’m not sure exactly what that requires, but not all Mormons are temple-eligible, so it isn’t only gentiles that are being kept out. Some Mormon couples have the sealing in the temple and follow it up with a ring blessing that non-temple-eligible friends and family can witness. But they aren’t obligated to do so and many don’t want to, feeling that the sealing is the important thing and the ring blessing is just a frill.
From an etiquette perspective, it isn’t rude under these circumstances to invite people only to the reception.
I’ve personally been excluded from an LDS wedding even with an invitation in hand. I was told by the pastor that the invite much have been mistakenly sent to me and that under no circumstances would I be allowed into the temple, whether to the wedding or any other service. I apparently won’t be getting my own planet either.
In the same vein, is it true that a mormon bride has a secret name she whispers only to her groom? I’ve heard something to this effect, but rumors revolving around the LDS are second only to, say, Scientology.
First of all, there is no “law” in Idaho or anywhere else that prohibits non-members from entering a Mormon temple. That would be a serious breach of church-state separation and would be totally unconstitutional.
It is a basic tenet of LDS doctrine that the temple is a sacred and holy place, the House of the Lord, and that not just any member, but those who are considered “worthy” may enter the temple. This requires an interview with local church leaders who determine whether the person is making an honest effort to live his life in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel.
The crucial element of a “sealing” in the temple, is that the union is sealed “for time and all eternity,” meaning that the marriage is valid beyond the grave, in contrast to “until death do you part,” in a non-temple wedding. To LDS members this is a vital point of doctrine that the family unit can continue into the hereafter.
Many couples who have non-LDS family and friends elect to have a “ring ceremony” as part of the reception, so that those unable to attend the temple are not completely left out. This has symbolic, but no legal significance.
It is possible for a couple to be married in a civil ceremony and then be sealed at a later time in the temple. The church, however, requires a waiting period of one year after the civil ceremony before the temple sealing can take place. In some countries (the UK for one IIRC) marriages are required by law to be open to the public, so in these cases it is permitted to have a civil wedding immediately followed by a temple sealing.
Note that in the above when I say “civil” wedding I am referring to any non-temple marriage ceremony, whether done in a church, courthouse or Las Vegas wedding chapel.
Usually LDS wedding invitations are actually invitations to the reception, and will say something like “Marriage to be solemnized in the CityName LDS Temple.” Those close family and friends who are invited to attend the actual sealing in the temple will have a separate card enclosed with the invitation.
But even if you did get one of those cards, you will not get past the front door of the temple where they will ask to see your Temple Recomend.
FatBaldGuy: A fine answer. Do you have a verification of the secret name rumor I posted in this thread? I’m very curious about it; it’s purpose, etc. If I recall what I heard correctly it jibes with what you wrote, (read: some sort of for time and all eternity issue), something about a wife meeting her husband in the hereafter. I believe I heard that the secret name was what she identified herself with when she found him—but then what? Or is this nothing but poppycock?
You’re sort of correct - the groom has the wife’s secret name which he tells her at the sealing. That is the name that he will call out, after death, in order to guide her into heaven.
Unmarried women are therefore unable to get into the highest level of heaven according to mormon doctrine, because they have no one to guide them there.
There are lesser heavens that they can still get into tho…
Birdmonster, part of the reason that the temple cermonies are closed to outsiders is that they are very sacred in nature, and much of the symbolism and ritual which is very meaningful to us would be mocked and ridiculed by those who do not understand or share our beliefs. For this reason, we don’t discuss some of these sacred things outside of the temple, even among ourselves.
To try to answer your question, part of the temple ceremony does involve a “new name” both for men and women. Think of this in the same sense that Simon was given the new name of Peter by the Lord, or that Saul took the name of Paul for his ministry.
What if the wife dies first? Does she have to hang around with the single gals until her husband shows up?
Close, but no cigar - I cannot be too specific here, as I keep these things as sacred and do not reveal aspects of the temple ceremonies, but I do believe I can clear up a few misconceptions here. There is no “secret name” given during the sealing ceremony. Something similar does occur during an endowment ceremony, but that ceremony is often done when a woman, (or a man) is unmarried. I have never heard, other than in folk teachings, anything like it is designed to “guide her into heaven”. Particularly because, like I said, it seems that the majority receive their endowments (go through the endowment ceremony) before they even meet their future spouse.
BTW, the new new name thing is based (IIRC), at least partially on the LDS understanding of Isaiah 62:2, Revelations 2:17 and Revelations 3:12.
It is true that unmarried women are unable to get into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom (as I understand it), but so are unmarried men. My understanding is that we also believe in the ability of people to meet and marry after the second coming.
If it sounds like I am being very guarded, I am, for two reasons:
- I don’t want to misrepresent the LDS Church (actually, I am a member, but don’t officially represent them at all) and I don’t want any misunderstanding on my part to be taken as doctrine.
- I take these things very seriously, treat them as sacred, and will not talk about them in detail outside the temple.
I hope this helped, though.
That’s not quite accurate. You’ve heard a version that is meant to offend your feminist sensiblities. The fact is that the ‘highest level’ is a package deal; we can only get there together. A single man would be in the same position as a single woman.
Luckily, we believe that people will be able to get together in the next life as well, so it’s not necessary to worry about people who never got married while alive.
What’s the difference, then, between the highest level of Heaven and it’s downstairs neighbor? In fact, are there levels of heaven that could be classified, by the LDS, as just so-so? Pergatory-ish?
(I’m terribly out of touch with most religious teachings, beyond a couple latin prayers drummed into while doing altar boy duties god knows how long ago. And the sader. I’m still waiting for Elijah to drink his plum wine)
According to LDS teachings there are three “kingdoms” or “degrees of glory” in heaven. They are called the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom and the Telestial Kingdom.
In I Corinthians 15: 40-42 Paul said,
The Celestial Kingdom is the highest kingdom, and is where God dwells. Those who have been baptized, lived faithful lives and kept the commandments will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. Only those who have been sealed with their spouses and families for all eternity will achieve the highest level within the Celestial Kingdom.
The Terrestrial Kingdom will be for the “good people of the earth” who generally lived good lives, but did not meet all the requirements for Celestial glory.
The Telestial Kingdom will be for the murderers, adulterers, thiefs and others who have not repented of their sins.
Please understand that this is very much an oversimplification, and that I do not speak for the Church in any way, shape or form.
What he said.
I really popped in here to mention that Mormons do not really call everyone who isn’t LDS “Gentiles.” Once upon a time it was in more common usage, but no one does it now.
A lot of people do get upset about temple sealings not being open to everyone, and I’m sympatheitc to that, but that’s just how it is, and it’s not going to change anytime soon. In an LDS sealing, it’s all about the couple making covenants with God. The importance of those covenants supersede others’ wish to be there. Mormons are used to this and friends who have not been through the temple routinely drive for hours, only to cheerfully stand outside the temple and wait for them to come out. But it can be difficult for those who aren’t used to it.
If it’s any comfort (probably not, I know), the sealing ceremony is extremely short and almost Spartan in comparison to an ordinary church wedding. No songs, no flowers, no readings–just the couple at the altar. It takes only a few minutes. The sealer often gives a little talk beforehand on the importance of the covenant, and it takes a little while for people to get settled, but even that stretches it out to all of 15-20 minutes.
FBG: First off, I know you don’t speak for the Church, but, considering your knowledge & location, I’m just bouncing some questions I’ve had off you.
It seems like there are several levels within, at the very least, the Celestial Kingdom, and that those with sealed marriages can—but do not necessarily—ascend to said level. Would, say, a Presbiterian be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom at a lower level, being that he’s Christian but doesn’t have a sealed marriage? Or would they be in the Terrestrial? What about agnostics, but highly moral ones? Does the LDS take the Catholic view that rejecting their religion automatically sends you to the worst possible afterlife, or is there some wiggle-room for those of us who, although areligious, live with a good will towards our neighbors? Last, but not least, is the Telestial Kingdom likened to an LDS version of Hell? It’s obviously the least desirable afterlife, but, how undesirable is it, really?
Also, if I’m becoming a nag, clue me in.
No, you have to be sealed and in really good standing to go this the Celestial kingdom.
Moral people (even non-religious) and people who never heard of Jesus Christ will go to the Terrestial kingdom. This is for people who live a good life but don’t accept all the LDS doctrine.
Hell is a strong word. I don’t recall that there is active punishment or pain. Maybe some endless toiling but I am not sure. It is more undesirable in a way that there are no rewards.
Ok, this is my understanding -
As to the non-member of the LDS church being allowed to enter the Celestial Kingdom, I believe that they would be excluded because of a lack of ordinances such as Baptism by members of the LDS Church with the authority to perform them. THis is one of the main reasons that LDS members are so focused on Geneology and temple work on behalf of those who died before us. We believe that acceptance of such ordinances can occur in the afterlife, which would make them eligible for admission into the Celestial Kingdom.
Good people of all beliefs, including agnostics and atheists, are eligible for the Telestial Kingdom.
What I was taught in regards to the desirability of the three kingdoms was that the lowest of the three, the Terrestial Kingdom, is still significantly better than our mortal existance. I recall being told that if we could experience the Terrestial Kingdom, there would be a rash of suicides to get there. I don’t know, I have never seen that in anything official so it might be folklore.
As the the LDS understanding of Hell, we believe that, when someone dies, the dwell in a place usually called either “Spirit Prison” or Spirit Paradise" until the Millenium and the Judgment that occurs at its end. Only then will people live in the Celestial, Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms. Many believe that Hell equates with Spirit Prison. As to the conditions in spirit prison, I have never heard anything other than idle speculation.
Does that help?
I was brung up Catholic, and I can’t recall anything about “rejecting their religion automatically sen(ing) you to the worst possible afterlife”. My Baltimore catechism outlined three ways for the unbaptized to get into Heaven. And, although it’s certainly not church doctrine, Dante and others placed virtuous pagans in limbo, or at least the nicer suburbs of Hell.
As for what I recall of LDS afterlife, the Telestial Kingdom doesn’t resemble Hell at all. IIRC, it’s sort of the outermost suburb of Heaven (if you’ll forgive that impertinance). Mormon “Hell” is the Outer Darkness.
There’s a wonderful Grondahl or Bagley cartoon that has a bunch of devils sitting around playing poker at a table in a room labeled “Outer Darkness”. Another devil is opening the door, looking at the scattered beer cans, pizza boxes, and chips bags, and saying “Clean this place up! It’s starting to look like Hell in here!”