|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Celestial marriage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Celestial marriage historically synonymous with plural marriage
- 3 Swedenborg
- 4 Celestial Marriages and Celestial Plural Marriages
- 5 External Links & Swedenborg
- 6 Major restructuring proposal in a related article
- 7 Alleged linguistic incoherence
- 8 Context on public perception from media or responses from independent organisation?
- 9 Zero evidence women will have to choose between husbands
Perhaps this article should be merged with "Sealing (Mormonism)". There is significant overlap but different approaches to the subject. At least they ought to be made consistent with one another. --andersonpd 08:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. The opening paragraph suggests that only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints performs celestial marriages, but subsequent paragraphs confuse the different usage of the term among different groups. As it stands, it's not very useful and should either be re-written or merged into another article. --NThurston 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that there is overlap. I came to this article as a redirect from "Eternal Marriage". I was hoping to find information on world religions that teach some principle or another of post-mortal marital relationships, a non-Mormon-centric article much like the article Baptism for the dead. I know many people believe in marriage in the after-life, it's quite a romantic notion. But I'm not sure how many or which religions teach it as a doctrine. If there are others besides the LDS church, than this article could definitely use revision to cover that and the LDS focus should be kept in Sealing (Mormonism). Unless someone wants to write a new article, but I think it's a topic that can best be covered in an existing one.-Puff (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Celestial marriage historically synonymous with plural marriage
The article states that historically, celestial marriage and plural marriage were synonymous terms. I believe this is accurate, but there are some editors who are intent on changing this. I think to do so they would need to find a pre-1890 source where it is clear that a non-polygamous marriage is being referred to as "celestial marriage". This does not mean just quoting D&C 132 and interpreting it as you please—we need another source.
To illustrate the problem of using D&C 132: one editor in an edit summary said evidence that the terms were not synonymous could be found in that D&C 132 mentions "wife" in the singular. This interpretation totally disregards that the section speaks of marrying this wife in the "new and everlasting covenant", which historically was also understood to mean plural marriage.
Of course, the LDS Church interprets these words differently today, but that's not the point. The point is that historically they were the same. –SESmith 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure you would have to show that the terms are historically synonymous rather then challenge people to prove they aren't. This is a bit like asking people to show references that the pyramids were never used as indoor ballooning arenas. Drewder (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone added a paragraph that contradicted the Swedenborg section, and seemed to be written with a very apologetic bias so I removed it. If the author disagrees with the removal, please provide evidence to support your assertion. Descartes1979 05:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I thought it should be removed too and was about to. –SESmith 05:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- As did I, but I didn't remove. The someone was an anonymous editor, User:220.127.116.11. My edits were to remove the "some historians" and other weasel language and pro and con POV language. -Visorstuff 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Celestial Marriages and Celestial Plural Marriages
It isn't simply that the scripture itself says "a wife" singular is included in the doctrine of celestial marriage. It is the history.
The fact is that sealings for time and eternity (i.e. Celestial marriages) were being performed for monogamous couples long before 1890. The majority of the sealings were between one man and one wife all throughout the Church's history.
The Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136:
"...it is borne in mind that at this time the new law of marriage for the Church—marriage for eternity, including plurity of wives under some circumstances—was being introduced by the Prophet, it is very likely that the following article was written with a view of applying the principles here expounded to the conditions created by introducing said marriage system."
Marriage for eternity included plural wives only "some circumstances". Most eternal marriages were not plural. The Doctrine and Covenant's "new and everlasting covenant" referred to eternal marriage as opposed to "till death do us part". I invite anybody to read the section for themselves.
Notice that Lorenzo Snow had to specify that he was referring to Celestial plural marriage instead of just celestial marriage:
"He knew the voice of God—he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward—to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world…; but God…had given the commandment" [The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 69-70 (Salt Lake City, 1884)].
External Links & Swedenborg
The link for heaven and hell chapter 40 is not really related to this article neither is the reference. I noticed that Swedenborg stuff has already been removed and I think these are just left overs. It would be better to have a link to an article written by someone in the LDS church. I will remove the two items, and if someone can find reason to put it back be my guest. Redrok84 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I restored the content and the link - I think it is quite relevant. I could use some help looking up the reference so we can get it sourced, since I don't have a copy of Quinn's book.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alleged linguistic incoherence
The "afterlife" link takes to "celestial Kingdom" which redirecst to Degrees of glory.
I wonder if "degrees of glory" could be directly written in the article...
Anyone has anything to say about it?
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Context on public perception from media or responses from independent organisation?
It is surprising that there is no mention of the mainstream public controversy and skeptical perception around this celestial marriage concept. The article could be improved by adding a position from a non-religious organisation eg NYT, BBC or government body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Zero evidence women will have to choose between husbands
"Proxy sealings, like proxy baptisms, are merely offered to the person in the afterlife, indicating that the purpose is to allow the woman to choose the right man to be sealed to, as LDS doctrine forbids polyandry." I see zero evidence to support this conclusion. The statement "as LDS doctrine forbids polyandry" is not evidence, since the LDS church also forbids polygamy. I consequently removed all after the word "indicating." I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so I hope that's alright. Thanks. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- As a believing LDS Church member, it is my understanding that where multiple marriages are performed, either the persons involved will remain sealed to however many people they got sealed to in this life or they will be given the choice as to which individual they want to remain with. I could be mistaken on this, however, so anyone who has greater knowledge on the subject is free to correct me if I'm in error. In the meantime, I have no problem with the text you removed. Thanks for discussing it on the talk page. I have a tip that may help you. You may want to consider getting a regular registered user account here on Wikipedia. Your edits would thus carry greater weight and be less likely to be challenged and reverted if you were a name rather than a mere IP address. Just something for you to consider. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)