Let's analyze how many grammar rules this sentence breaks:

"Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?"

Did the person who wrote this speak English? The first time I heard this "question," I thought, "Wow... What did that even SAY?!?"

It bothered me that the most important question of my life was asked in a way would get an F in English class.

It is a bit old-fashioned language, reflecting the era it was written and maybe sounding intentionally biblical (early 17th century), but this is true in most religious rituals. A lot easier to read than today's legalese or even operating instructions for some electronic purchase (probably made, and the instructions written, in China).

I agree with Richard, though it is a bit tedious and runs on.

An awful sentence, especially since it's meant to be spoken out loud, but alas--it's grammatical.

Quite the run on sentence....would not even pass in a fourth grade class. 7 and 8 yr. old just wouldn't write that much anyhow, so it wouldn't pass for them if they did.

you should remove the comma after "eternity." Then you have a sentence with multiple phrases, but they're correctly (if cumbersomely) linked by "and." Yet especially today people often insert unnecessary commas in order to separate the clauses and make for easier reading. The rule is that you should not insert a comma between the subject and the verb unless you are including a series.

I see two question sentences ("do you..." and "this you do...", each with a series in the predicate ("laws, rites,..." and "God, angels,..."), with the two separated by a comma and joined by and. Complex, but not incorrect.

Oh, the Oxford comma... I disagree completely -- I think the comma after "eternity" is necessary for clarity.

Thing is, it all depends upon which style guide you are using to cite your rules. APA, AP, Chicago, MLA? Every style guide has different rules, especially with respect to commas.

Here at work (I am an editor), we have had knock-down, drag-out fights, with tears and ugly, harsh words and everything, over commas. I am not kidding. It's seriously important to some people.

I do agree with the basic assessment that, while this is sort of over-the-top run-on, it's not incorrect. Just poorly phrased and possibly in dire need of a semicolon here or there.

Also, "a covenant and a promise" is redundant.

>"Also, 'a covenant and a promise' is redundant."

But that's not what's written. "Covenant" is a noun and "[do you] promise" is a verb, as part of a compound question: "Do you take...with a covenant and [do you] promise that you will observe...".

Also not the "Oxford comma."

This passage does have Oxford commas after "rites," and "angels," but to make the comma after "eternity" acceptable, you would also have to add a comma after "covenant," effectively setting of the phrase "with a covenant" as a parenthetical expression.

(I have to be a stickler about my own typos!)

I agree to disagree. I am not getting into another Comma War. The first one at work took too much outta me.

:-D

The "authorized literature" of Christian Science is loaded with compound-complex sentences, archaic terms, and polysyllabic vocabular. This, from her textbook, "Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures" (p. 178: 18-27). Line of text are numbered so, as with scripture verses, it can be precisely cited.

"18 Mortal mind, acting from the basis of sensation in matter, is animal magnetism; but this so-called mind, Animal magnetism destroyed from which comes all evil, contradicts itself,
21 and must finally yield to the eternal Truth, or the divine Mind, expressed in Science. In proportion to our understanding of Christian Science, we are
24 freed from the belief of heredity, of mind in matter or animal magnetism; and we disarm sin of its imaginary power in proportion to our spiritual understanding of the status
27 of immortal being."

I grew up on this crap. I could write the most sophisticated (sounding) essays and papers in college. Most professors were bamboozled by the camouflage of my pseudo-sophistication. Most of my actual content was actually superficial.

Ever heard the official "explanation" of the trinity? That one seems intentionally designed to put a person's brain through the spin cycle.

The Mormon temple endowment is full of bad grammer. I always cringed at the beginning of the covenants phrases, "You and each of you do covenenant to obey the Law of..." or however it went. But a small disclaimer: I did love the Greco-Roman paradise Elohim and Jebus lived in, liberally decorated with plastic ivy, and aspired to live there one day.

Well it's gone. Now they live permanently stuck in a transporter beam, hovering in space.

The problem isn't so much grammar as style. The writing is pompous, self important, and cumbersome, and doesn't connect with the reader/listener.

It kinda reminds me of this:


* Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”


* Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

What if you only wanted to be married for "half" of eternity, and not "all" of it?

Is a "third" of eternity an option?

I was married in the chapel "for all Time" , but if you look at quantum theory, Time doesn't exit, so I take that to mean the marriage is null and void and unpromisable.... Just kidding. but the idea might be a relief to those in an unhappy or abusive marriage- hey it's not actually FOREVER! Christ said in the N.T. that no one is married in Heaven. Christ also said to "swear your oaths to no one , not even God" he said to "swear not at all". So marriage is a legal and sentimental concept, not sure it's actually necessary to be married to be with someone- that's my theory. my fave bible quote :"Where there is Love , there is God."

Actually, "covenant" is also a transitive verb. It's much like (and used in this sense interchangeably with) "contract". You can have a contract (noun) between two or more people or you can contract (verb) out work between two or more people (neither of which should be confused with "taking out a contract on X" because it's messy, icky, morally wrong and leads to legal difficulties). *carefully removes and stores Word Pedant Hat and back in its box to preserve the creases and so the bells and tassels don't get all dusty.*

It's still written to sound "deep" and "meaningful" and, like many contracts, to be as confusing as possible so you don't think too much about it. Much like using "forsaking all others" in the standard wedding vows, if you asked people what they'd just sworn to do, they wouldn't have a clue.

Notnevernomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, "covenant" is also a transitive verb.

Yes, it can be that, but not here (the article "a" shows it's a noun).

Yes you can covenant, you can contract you can trow and you can plight.

How it's worded and where the comma falls doesn't matter in this case (though that is not the case in the real world of contract law, or any area of law, really).

But if you take an idea of contract law and expound: isn't that contract null and void on its face?

You did not see God, nor those Angels, they did not shake your hand, and they didn't sign off on the register/license or official record, plus no one checked their ID to see if they qualify as legal witnesses in the state in which this contract was made. So, your alleged oral contract with them is not breached if you change your mind later and choose not to do what you said you would, or were unable to perform what was asked of you.

Their promises held out to you have not come to pass, and there is no credible evidence of their intention to meet those promises made to you, now or ever.

You did, however, pay for their promises to be upheld and their work on your behalf to be completed, with full benefits of same accruing to you. That did not happen. There is no evidence it is likely to happen, either. Now or Ever.

The agreement to uphold the terms of this contract on your part, therefore does not exist and the contract, entered into with some duress, under false pretenses and promise, facing loss of your eternal soul (as you so were led to believe at the time), is itself null and void.

Their part of the contract and its promises are not provable. You win.

Tell that to whoever asks you why you are supposedly "breaking your promises to the church" (or to your spouse/forever family, etc).

And no, I am not a lawyer; housewife who likes to believe she's Perry Mason, here.

"*carefully removes and stores Word Pedant Hat and back in its box to preserve the creases and so the bells and tassels don't get all dusty.*"

I love this.