Many LDS Church members don’t know about its first official statement on the subject of marriage. With all of the current brouhaha over what constitutes a marriage, I thought it would be fun to acquaint you with this piece of history.
On August 17, 1835, Priesthood and members assembled in Kirtland, Ohio to vote on canonizing the (new) Book of Doctrine and Covenants. The minutes of this assembly are in the introduction of the RLDS (CofC) Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 1970 edition. Paragraph 13 reads President W.W. Phelps then read an article on Marriage, which was accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote. The Article on Marriage (AOM) is Section 111 of the RLDS D&C. Here are some of the highlights (IMO), the paragraph references, and how the LDS/RLDS currently compare to it.
1b. ….all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose. RLDS marriages follow this instruction. LDS marriages outside the Temple are certainly public; Temple marriages/sealings are somewhat in-between public and private.
1c……the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest….. The RLDS are still good with this. The LDS officiator is either a Temple President or the Ward Bishop, unless I’m mistaken. I wish Fathers could perform the marriage of their children in the Ward, just like their baptisms/ordinations.
1d. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination to so do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some might find validity in this statement, but I never knew any RLDS who agreed, myself included. We knew too many spouses who became members in due time.
2b. “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives?”
2d. “May God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and for ever. Amen.”
Although the remarks and vows of an RLDS wedding can vary, every one that I witnessed included these two statements, and they were recited verbatim. I don’t know if anyone got in trouble for omitting them. Now, with the CofC performing same-sex marriages, the wording will definitely have to change.
And now, the BIGGIE
4b. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. This was always the “ace in the hole” for the RLDS to refute polygamy. But I wondered “if polygamy originated under the leadership of Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith (as the RLDS claimed) why did it have to be addressed in 1835? I understand that the CofC no longer makes that claim, and polygamists in foreign nations are permitted membership without change in marital status.
Of course, once the LDS church printed the revelation on eternal marriage, the 1835 article was discarded. Three main arguments were made against it.
It was not a Revelation. Neither was the article on governments and laws in general, which was presented/adopted at the same assembly; now found as LDS section 134 and RLDS section 112.
Joseph Smith was absent when it was presented (minutes; para. 4b) Oliver Cowdery is accused of being the author of the AOM, but I find it hard to believe that he could “sneak” it in for the assembly to consider/vote without the Prophet’s knowledge.
It was replaced by section 132. This is the most plausible point. Priesthood structure and purposes of the Temple both went through expansions.
If you get a chance, read the AOM in its entirety, and consider these questions:
Are there parts of this document you wish the LDS had retained?
Was it inspired, or just an attempt to lessen suspicions/hostilities of non-LDS?
What would you have added or deleted?
Wheat & Tares 
Count me as one who believes the LDS would be better off to separate the marriage ceremony from the sealing ordinance as a worldwide policy.
Have a public marriage ceremony, including the two statements above, the Anglican “for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer,” that Pres. Hinckley frequently quoted, and the “speak now or forever hold your peace.” Include rings, non-member family, etc.
THEN, have a temple sealing ceremony afterwards. Maybe the next day, or the next year.
I wish we still had mutual vows like this in our ceremony: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives?” instead of the polygamy-friendly ceremony we have now, in which the bride gives herself to the husband, and the husband “takes” her without making any promises to her in return.
Strongly agree with both Clark & April comments. Well said. One aspect I dislike is all the kerfuffel around the *dissolution* of marriage. There’s an article on Jana Riess’s blog called “Polygamy lives on in Mormon temple sealings.” Makes for some very enlightening (and disturbing) reading.
Link to above: http://religionnews.com/2016/08/03/polygamy-lives-on-in-mormon-temple-sealings/
TOC’s comment made my wife and I wonder if Temple-worthy couples are required to have a Temple marriage?
markag – No. Of course there is social pressure and a sense of disappointment if they do not, but there is no requirement for an otherwise worthy couple to marry in the temple. I know of several couples who were married by their bishop and then a year later had a temple sealing. Some wanted family to be at the wedding, some just didn’t want to be sealed right away.
Or, a couple I’m aware of in Europe got married civilly (as required by law in that nation) then immediately boarded train for Switzerland to be sealed in the Swiss temple. A travel delay–not their fault, obviously–meant they arrived more than 24 hrs after their civil ceremony, so they had to wait an entire year!
Marriage and sealing are two completely different things.
Miss Understood: we have not attended a Temple Marriage yet. How much of a difference is there in the Marriage and Sealing?
Other Clark: Is that time period the norm in the Church? Even if it’s a Chapel Wedding?
markag– Yes. In countries that legally require a civil ceremony (e.g. require it to be a public wedding or don’t recognize sealers as authorized to perform marriages), the Church allows a sealing to immediately follow the civil ceremony IF it is performed within 24 hours. Otherwise, the one-year wait is required. Most of Europe and Latin America fall under this policy.
In countries such as the U.S., where temple marriage is legal, those that choose a civil ceremony must abide the one-year wait.
In the US, the temple sealing IS the marriage ceremony. For a sealing between 2 living couples, the sealer usually spends a few minutes giving advice/scriptures to the couple. Then the couple kneels at the altar for the marriage ceremony.
For people married outside the temple, the LDS Church has policy that the ceremony cannot be held in the chapel. LDS policy also says that the father should not walk the bride down the aisle. However, if held outside a church (park, or some other place), fathers can escort the bride.
If marriage is held in an LDS Church, it is held in the RS room or gym (to accommodate more people) the bishop usually says a few words and it is relatively similar to a protestant wedding.
“For people married outside the temple, the LDS Church has policy that the ceremony cannot be held in the chapel. LDS policy also says that the father should not walk the bride down the aisle. However, if held outside a church (park, or some other place), fathers can escort the bride.”
Gosh MH, that’s harsh. In Britain where we have to have the civil ceremony first that absolutely IS held in the chapel, with all the usual bits one might expect, walking down the aisle etc. Guests (many of whom are nonmembers) would view it as downright peculiar for it not to be in the chapel…
I think it’s a terrible policy hedgehog, but it is policy in the US.
What’s the rationale for making couples in the U.S. wait a year to be sealed after a wedding outside the temple?
Penalty for not getting married in the temple in the first place. (Same for why they can’t use the chapel to get married.) It’s punitive, and that’s the only reason for it.
MH: Our middle son (21) was married last year to a non-member. According to our Bishop, the wedding could’ve taken place in the chapel (I’ve attended two such ceremonies) but there can be no photography, no decorations, and the ceremony is extremely brief. So we opted for the cultural hall; beautifully decorated by the bride’s mother. The ceremony was not too long or short, and I was able to contribute a song to the couple; Handel’s “Wher’er you walk”. My extended family said the Bishop did an outstanding job.