A reader writes:
I have a close relative who was raised Catholic but has been baptized into the Mormon church. This relative is planning to have a Mormon temple wedding later this year. As I’m not Mormon, the question of whether to attend the wedding itself is moot; non-Mormons aren’t allowed into Mormon temples. I’ve been asked to attend the reception and been invited to be present for photos which will be taken in a public area of the temple grounds. I would like your opinion on whether being in the photos and attending the reception would be problematic.
Feel free to use/respond to this in your blog, and thanks for rule 15!
No problem! That’s what it’s there for!
Regarding the marriage situation, I need to bifurcate the question based on a piece of info you don’t mention–namely, whether your relative is already married to the person to whom he or she is planning to have a temple ceremony with. Often Mormons get married outside a temple first and inside the temple later.
If your relative is already married to the person outside the temple then the temple marriage signifies absolutely no change of status objectively. From God’s perspetive there is no such thing as "celestial marriage" between human couples, distinct from regular marriage. If they are already regularly married then objectively nothing will change about their status if they get married in a Mormon temple.
That being the case, to endorse the marriage with one’s presence (e.g., in photos or at the reception) would be to endorse the idea that God really did something in the rite, which is not the case. It would therefore be a form of false witness and I could not recommend that you participate.
On the other hand, what if the couple is not yet married and the temple marriage will be their first marriage ceremony with each other?
Since your relative has apparently defected from the Church by a formal act (joining the Mormon church as an adult from what I can tell and thereby repudiating membership in the Catholic Church) your relative is not bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage and so a valid marriage will not be blocked from coming into existence due to defect of form.
Assuming there is nothing else affecting the situation (like prior spouses who are still alive), the temple marriage will be presumed valid, although it will not result in the kind of eternal union Mormons think it will, nor will it further the apotheosis of the parties.
Could one then attend the reception and be in the photos without one’s presence testifying to something false?
It is tempting to put this union on the same footing as the situation of a person leaving the Catholic Church for Protestantism and say that, since the marriage will be presumed valid, one can attend in testifying to what God is doing in the ceremony.
But it seems to me that there are reasons that argue against this:
1) Mormons are not Christians. They have invalid baptisms in the Church’s judgment as well as horrendously false doctrine. They are neither Christians in their faith or sacramentally. By endorsing polytheism and the idea that men can become gods with their own planets full of their descendants worshipping them and their wive(s), they have produced a horriffic caricature of Christianity.
2) The doctrine of celestial marriage–the kind of marriage performed in a Mormon temple–is central to the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis: If you don’t have a celestial marriage, you can’t be a god. The marriage thus represents not just a ceremony in which God is doing something (validly joining the couple), it is overlayed with the horrible blasphemy that this rite will further the godhood of the participants.
3) It thus seems to me that Mormon celestial marriages, even though they presumably result in a valid union, are not analogous to the marriages of other Christians. Instead, they are more analogous to an extra-marital affair that results in the conception of a child. God steps in to do his part in the conception of the child (endowing it with a soul), but the mere fact that he does this does not mean that the human parties have not introduced into the situation a gravely evil overlay that prevents the event from being an occasion of celebration.
Once can certainly celebrate the birth of a child, even one conceived out of wedlock, but one cannot celebrate the adulterous act by which the child was conceived. In the case of such a pregnancy, there is the passage of time between the adulterous act and the birth of the child, making it possible to untangle the two in terms of celebration, but in the case of the temple marriage the objective good (the valid union of the couple) and the objective evil (that this rite will further the godhood of the participants) cannot be untangled. There isn’t nine months of development between the two things.
Your Mormon relative could say to you: "Hey, I know that you’re Catholic and that you don’t believe that this will further my godhood, so I don’t expect you to be joyful about that."
To which I personally would feel compelled to reply: "No, but you believe that this furthers your godhood, and as long as that horrible blasphemy is part of your joy, I cannot join you in it."
The relative might then reply: "Hey, I doubt that I’ll even make it to godhood."
To which I in your place would reply: "I’m sorry, but your church teaches that this rite objectively furthers your chance of becoming a god with countless billions worshipping you, and as long as it teaches that, this rite has a sacrilegious character that prevents me from having anything to do with it."
Which raises one last point:
4) By becoming a Mormon your relative has not simply joined a schismatic church or a heretical church. The relative has, in fact, become an apostate–a person who has completely repudiated the Christian faith. Worse, because of the nature of Mormon teaching, the relative does not realize that this is what has happened because, even though the Mormon church has totally repudiated the Christian faith, it continues to talk about Jesus in a way that deceives its members into thinking that they are Christians when they are not.
The situation of a Mormon is objectively the same as that of a Hindu who is prepared to accept Jesus as "a god" but not as the God. Both are non-Christians who continue to talk about Jesus and his divinity in some way, but neither has embraced the Christian faith. The difference is that the Hindu does not typically claim to be a Christian.
(NOTE: Some might argue that embracing a non-Christian religion is not itself sufficient for apostasy if one still insists on applying the word "Christian" to oneself. If so, then we just need a new word for a person who leaves Christianity for a non-Christian religion. Until we have such a word, I’ll continue to use "apostate" since the two acts of defection are nearly identical in moral character.)
By leaving Christianity for Mormonism, your relative as become an apostate who is more unfortunate than the Hindu just mentioned in that he doesn’t realize that he is not a Christian (or she, if your relative is a woman).
As a result, your relative is in a most unfortunate position and there can be few spiritual priorities more urgent than helping the person realize his objective spiritual status.
If it were me, I would have to say to such an individual, in the most sorrowful, compassionate way possible: "I’m sorry, but by rejecting the Triune God and joining a church that believes in polytheism, you have rejected the Christian faith. I simply cannot celebrate any rites performed by a body that teaches what the Mormon church teaches about man and God. I recognize that you disagree, but I hope that you can respect the fact that my conscience requires me to refuse attendance at any of the festivities."
20
thank you for this post.
i have a friend who is mormon. i specifically did not invite her to my baby’s baptism, for fear of being invited to her child’s baptism, to which i would absolutely refuse.
now, i have a better lexicon to use, should i ever be invited to her religious events or receptions.
i keep her in my prayers, and try to be a good example of christian charity. her husband was raised catholic, and they are both very resistant to the idea of leaving their mormon religion. i try to “preach always, using words only when necessary.”
Jimmy,
I agree with your position, but I do think it is contrary to the general trend of the Church, which is that the attendance at non-Christian events is permissible and does not constitute an endorsement of these teachings.
When my local bishop attends a passover seder, no one says that this constitutes an endorsement of the Jewish idea of passover versus the Christian understanding of the event. When John Paul II kissed the Koran, the response was “every bozo knows the Pope doesn’t think the Koran is inspired.”
Also, what about a Mormon non-temple wedding? I would assume that it would be permissable (my in-laws are mostly Mormons, and they younger members are entering adulthood).
I’m not sure what I would do if a sibling-in-law got married in the temple, as I would want to refuse – but that would open 2 billion cans of worms family wise (and shut off future potential for conversions!)
I have a Mormon sister who was married to a non mormon and devorced him. She recently married a Mormon man who was previously married to a woman in the Temple. My sister and her new husband were married in their church and not the Temple. Can the they ever be married in the Temple? What are the rules for remarring in the Temple?
Thank you,
Jorge Benavides
I came to your site because of your response to Catholicism in Jack Chick’s “works”. I thought that you did an excellent job of addressing Chick’s methods and his inaccuracies. Unfortunately, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can tell you that you represent our religion about as well as Chick does Catholicism. Ironic.