In the temple endowment ceremony, before participants receive the first token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or the Sign of the Nail, they covenant to obey the law of chastity. Namely, they covenant that they will "have no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded."
This phrase, "legally and lawfully wedded," has always been intriguing to me. Why the redundancy? Or is there some distinction between "legally" and "lawfully" that I don't know about. The words seem like synonyms to me.

Also, what "laws" are Elohim, Jehivah, and Peter referring to? Civil laws or some spiritual law? My supposition is that it was explicitly intended to mean civil law, in order to exclude persons who had entered into illegal plural marriages.

Now that same sex marriage is legal across the United States, Canada, and a growing number of other countries, doesn't this law permit legal same-sex sexual relations within a legal marriage? The official temple rule could have been worded differently to prevent ambiguity, but it wasn't.

Now that civil marriage and temple sealing are officially allowed to be separate in the United States and Canada, are married, but unsealed spouses permitted to consummate their marriage, i.e., engage in sexual relations before their temple sealing?

Notably absent as well is any specifix prohibition on sexual activity without a partner, i.e., masturbation, pornography, impure thoughts, etc. After suffering through many priesthood worthiness interviews as a youth, I was surprised that the temple law of chastity was so simple.

Any thoughts?

I can write a will. If it does not conform to the statutes of my jurisdiction, it would be invalid, illegal as to its conforming to the law. Though it was lawful for me to write said will as writing a will is in consideration of the law and in itself not an illegal act.

So while marriage is lawdul, an illegal marriage might then be where one party is under age, under duress, not legally able to consent. Or unauthorized to perform the marriage perhaps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 09:46PM by dogblogger.

I see what you're trying to say. But isn't it true that every legal marriage is also lawful and every lawful marriage is also legal?

I'll leave it to the Legal Eagles here to provide functionary information of the law. Legal and lawful mean two different things depending on the subject matter and the law. It may be legal to marry someone at the age of consent (say, 18 years old), however, it may be illegal to cohabitate with a minor or 18 year old without consent of a parent or guardian. You must check your local laws as to what is permissible. I would check with the local county attorney as to how his/her office approaches civil unions, marriages, and joinders. Good luck to you and yours!

Cake

Very good to see your name again, cakeordeath!!

It always struck me as tautological. The main difference is that "legal" comes from Norman French/Latin and "lawful" is an Anglo-Saxon/Germanic word. One could think up a lot more pairs like this e.g. "maternally and motherly", or "canine and doglike", or "rich and wealthy".

The current wording is "legally and lawfully according to the law of God" which seems to be overemphasizing it.

How about:

legally and lawfully married and wedded

the common application of the two terms is slightly different, kinda/sorta like the difference between 'truth' & 'facts'.

Truth is a more encompassing term which directly implicates context.

Facts, OTOH, refers to verifiable events or circumstances.


"legal" is thought to mean or at least suggest being in compliance to statutes & on-point relevant court decisions which have established precedence.

"lawful" is thought to include contextual circumstances that may apply in one area (social or geographical, etc) but not in another. In a clear-cut case, some act might be legal but not lawful; this could easily be applied to plural marriages performed in the hay-days of Mormonism.

These slight distinctions are the bread & butter of attorneys, tax accountants, & people who testify before government bodies. Bill Clinton said (paraphrase): <'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'> , ha ha...

I'd welcome further enlightenment on this from a more-seasoned professional on this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 10:58PM by GNPE.

Just to echo what Jordan said, lawful comes from the "Common Law of England" which comes from the Anglo Saxons who immigrated to England in the early dark ages from Germany and who were the tribe that influenced Early English language the most. So this tradition is dating from about 400-600 AD.

Now maybe someone with an English degree can clarify but as far as I know the Anglo Saxons didn't have a written language and left us no folklore except for balewoolf which actually may come from when the Danes ruled England (Danelaw 800s).

The common law was the law of ordinary people throughout the middle ages (in England), which are property law rights and how to handle probate, marriages, which children are legitimate and get inheritances etc. And when the founding fathers came to America they used English Common Law to write the early colonial laws of our country.

Certainly lawful and legal have different origins. They are synonyms. Synonyms almost always have different origins--otherwise there would be not be two words for the same thing.

If anything, I think, the word have the same technical meaning but convey a different sentiment.

My paradigmatic example of the different sentiment we still find in synonyms of old english and norman origin is "cordial" and "hearty." They literally mean the same thing, but one (cordial) has a fancier sentiment due to its Norman/old French origin and that la guage's historical association with court life. While the other (hearty) is associated with ordinary, common speech.

Still, if the same principle manifests itself with lawful and legal, why do we need both in the temple ceremony? Why is it so important to repeat these same words three times (Elohim to Jehovah, Jehovah to Peter James and John, Peter to the initiates)?

"Legally and lawfully wedded" is a term that's not just said in the Mormon church. Americans say it here and there without thinking much about it.

From all the responses I've read on this thread, my conclusion is that it doesn't mean anything special in mormondom. I don't think old joey was thinking about the Norman and Anglo-Saxon origins when he penned the phrase?

“Namely, they covenant that they will "have no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded."”

How are any covenants made in the temple, under conditions of mind screw and all sorts of Masonic-derived hokum, binding before God or the Easter Bunny? If you’re held hostage and fall victim to Stockholm syndrome, are you liable for any promises made to your captors?

Agreed. The "covenants" in the temple are all bogus. Even by the official mormon definition. A covenant is a mutual promise between two parties. But where is Elihim's consideration in any of the covenants? Also, how do we know that the pre-recorded voice in the production has authority to act as Elohim's agent? It's just a recording!


This was actually a big issue for me when I was first contemplating leaving the church. Wouldn't it be wrong, or dishonest, to go break my temple vows? Then it hit me. Of course it's not dishonest to break a phony promise made to a recording on behalf of an imaginary being.

Now, I have no qualms about revealing any of the temple secrets (or is that sacreds?).

The church itself is all hocus pocus. The church doesn't even exist. The federal government revoked the church's charter due to polygamy and confiscated the church's assets.

Later in 1919 I believe the church leaders incorporated the church as a corporation of sole where the oldest surviving apostle became the only stock holder of the corporation and president of it.

The church is not a chartered church. It's a corporation. The only member of the church in a legal sense is the president of the church. The other apostles are nothing more than church employees.

Everyone else who has been baptized as a so called member are nothing more than volunteers and donators. You have no say in how the church operates nor do you have any legal claim to any assets.

I heard a so called member not too long ago say it was great to belong to an organization that owned $33 million of automobiles. The guy was talking like he had a share in those assets. No. Russel M Nelson owns $33 million dollars of automobiles or he at least has the lease on them. No sir. You just volunteer your time and donate your money to Russel M Nelson's corporation. You have no say or share in any of it.

The phrase "legally and lawfully" is an example of a legal doublet, which is a standardized phrase used frequently in English legal language consisting of two or more words that are near synonyms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet

These terms came about during the transition from one legal language to another, and tend to combine words of Germanic origin with those of Romance origin.

Here's a good article on the topic, apparently asked in a secular legal forum by a Mormon: https://www.quora.com/Our-church-uses-a-phrase-that-a-couple-must-not-have-sex-unless-they-are-legally-and-lawfully-married-In-that-context-whats-the-difference-between-the-two-words-legally-and-lawfully

Mormon leaders frequently try to twist reality to support their bizarre doctrines and power structures. The use of the phrase "legally and lawfully" to exclude gay marriage from the church is fairly recent and based on a fallacious interpretation. It reminds me of the disingenuous pseudo-intellectual writhings in Dallin Oaks' infamous "Language of Prayer" talk.

Legally I thought it had to be someone that wasn't already married and not of too close a blood relative or too young to be married.

Lawfully I thought was by a judge or clergy.

May be the other way around. Just a guesd.

Butt.....when they changed the endowment in the 90s they closed a big loophole in mormon doctrine.

Currently it states Sexual Relations. Pre 90s it stated Sexual Intercourse.

In my day that left a lot of things open to do with your partner. Basically anything but inserting tab A into slot B. But other slots were open ;)

At one time it said for the men wife or wives.

Heavenly Father is fanatical about paperwork when it comes to the Law of Chastity. However when it comes to his sacred finances he doesn't like paperwork.

Actually, my understanding is that while all the talk was about other changes in the temple ceremony recently, they also subtly added something along the lines of "according to the laws of God" after the "legally and lawfully married" line. When I heard about it, my immediate thought was that it was a preemptive defense against the very argument you make about legal same sex marriage.

Aloysius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the temple endowment ceremony, before
> participants receive the first token of the
> Melchizedek Priesthood, or the Sign of the Nail,
> they covenant to obey the law of chastity. Namely,
> they covenant that they will "have no sexual
> relations except with their husbands or wives to
> whom they are legally and lawfully wedded."


Wonder when they are going to amend this to specifically exclude homosexual people?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wonder when they are going to amend this to
> specifically exclude homosexual people?


I don't know. My wife and I both think the new "civil marriage is okay" policy might be a step towards allowing gay members to get married (for time only) someday. Maybe?

They can still block same-sex couples from getting temple sealings.

JS liked to sound like a big deal by throwing extra words around.

"and it came to pass" "tight like unto a dish" "behold"

repetition and wordiness is par for the course.