#56527 Female endowment before marriage

[Gimgimno]

But I know that's how the ancient Israelites did it.

No, that is not the way I did it.

Now that is the funniest thing I've heard all week. I literally lol'ed.

I get 10% of the credit for that joke. Everyone must pay tithes for jokes that were born from my mouth!

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I am happy that I understand most, if not all, of this conversation. (I just went through the temple on Saturday.)

[vorpal blade]

You are the one who started this business of my being ancient. It has been entertaining to continue your joke. So, thank you. (Although, should I really be thanking you for calling me ancient? Perhaps I should just leave it at giving you proper credit.)

I am happy to hear that you received your endowments last Saturday, Giovanni! That's great. Prior to going through the temple with my then (1973) soon-to-be wife, she for the first time, I would not have fully understood what I am talking about now.

[Damasta]

But I know that's how the ancient Israelites did it.

No, that is not the way I did it.

Seriously, I'd like to see some evidence of that. Now, if you would like some wild speculation about what really happened at the marriage in Cana I refer you to the Journal of Discourses.

Alas, I can't cite you an LDS source, VP. I received that information from Stephen E. Robinson in a New Testament class. Immediately after the consummation, the woman's mother would go take the blood-spotted bedsheets as the "tokens of virginity" (Deut. 22:13–19). Also, a couple could be married (even at a very young age), but not consummate the marriage. This is why Mary and Joseph could be espoused (=married, not engaged like many suppose) and yet Joseph knew the child wasn't his (they hadn't consummated their marriage, yet).

(Edited to include v. 13 in the link, an omission which was unintentional.)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Damasta,

WHOAH THERE.

First of all, read that section from Deuteronmy in context, including verse 13. It specifically refers to a case where a man accuses a wife of not being a virgin.

This is how I understand it. In Jewish marriage custom, there are basically three stages: engagement, betrothal, and marriage. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which is somewhere between where engagement and marriage would be for us today—they are regarded as husband and wife, but do not have sexual relations. A betrothal could only be broken through an official divorce. The marriage, which came a year later, finalized the marriage in all ways.

So, unless you can show me some reliable source saying that the bride and groom in Cana consummated their marriage in front of people, I think it's best to understand that marriage as the end of betrothal and the beginning of marriage, with consummation to follow privately.

[Damasta]

Let me start out by apologizing. Without meaning to, I've purveyed some incorrect information. The Jewish consummation ceremony wasn't in full view of the party-goers. I apologize for not stating things clearly and correctly. At the consummation ceremony the couple would go into a private room while the party-goers continued feasting outside. When they were done, the couple would come out, everyone at the party would cheer, and the mother of the bride would go in and retrieve the tokens of her virginity.*

First of all, read that section from Deuteronmy [sic] in context, including verse 13. It specifically refers to a case where a man accuses a wife of not being a virgin.

So, like you say, the tokens were to serve as proof that she was a virgin in the case of her new husband trying to claim that she wasn't. The reason the parents had them in their possession is because they retrieved them immediately after the consummation. And, like you say, the consummation wasn't in broad daylight for everyone to watch.

This is how I understand it. In Jewish marriage custom, there are basically three stages: engagement, betrothal, and marriage. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which is somewhere between where engagement and marriage would be for us today—they are regarded as husband and wife, but do not have sexual relations. A betrothal could only be broken through an official divorce. The marriage, which came a year later, finalized the marriage in all ways.

I shied away from using the term "betrothal" since most people equate that with "engagement" and, like you say, in Jewish culture it was much more binding than an engagement. It could also be broken by the death of one of the partners.

Sorry for the confusion.

*As I said before, the only LDS source I have on this is Brother Stephen E. Robinson. It was he who suggested that the marriage at Cana was a consummation ceremony.

[Cognoscente]

Wasn't that whole bedsheet process in Fiddler on the Roof? I could swear I remember that scene.

[Imogen]

for a while, royals actually did consummate their marriages in front of witnesses to make sure the marriages were valid. that way that could not be used as a way to get out of the marriage, which usually came along with a treaty. eventually, that part stopped, but the couples were still put into bed by a large group of people. katherine of aragon and prince arthur had a ceremony like that. of course, since no one witnessed their consummation, there was a lot of controversy over whether or not she was a virgin when he died, which became henry vii argument to divorce her.

/enddorkytudor/royalknowledge

[Damasta]

Wasn't that whole bedsheet process in Fiddler on the Roof? I could swear I remember that scene.

I watched that movie in high school and I hated it. But now I'm wondering if I should give it another chance...

[bismark]

There was nothing about tokens of virginity in Fiddler on the Roof. I watched it a couple months ago while house sitting for my parents.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Wasn't that whole bedsheet process in Fiddler on the Roof? I could swear I remember that scene.

No. High school friendly play, that one is. And I really do love that play, though not necessarily the movie.

[Dragon Lady]

Back to the original topic, I think it got really … confusing. Dragon Lady 5 years ago (Dragon Young Lady?) would have read this forum and then pulled her hair out. I really hated it when endowed people would say stuff like, "Well, if you've been through the temple, you know what I'm talking about." It was especially horrible since I was an Ancient Near Eastern Studies major and spent much time studying ancient temples and ceremonies. The teacher would say something and all the guys (all endowed) would suddenly sit up and Ooooooh like a light had just turned on. And all of us girls (all unendowed) would stare at each other like, Did we miss something? Drove me crazy. Yes, I understand the importance of keeping the endowment sacred. However, I do not believe that we have to be mystical about it. That's what makes people think we're doing dirty things in there, like consummating our marriages.

So, please, let me clarify. In order to keep people from declaring me a blasphemer of the worst kind, I will still keep this somewhat vague, even though the rough details I knew long before I was endowed and I think it's ok to talk about in rough detail outside of the temple. (If you'd like to know more, please feel free to email me. dragonladyofjapan at gmail.)

So, why is everyone talking about? What is this "special moment"? During your endowment you receive some information. When you get married, you share that information with your husband and only your husband. If you receive your endowment just before getting married, you receive that knowledge and share it in the same ceremony. So a bishop might be concerned about a girl getting her endowments for her marriage a month prior because, if for some reason the ceremony is called off, the guy would know that piece of information and not become her husband. If a girl takes out her endowment well before getting married (like if she goes on a mission or is just "old" (like I was)) then she receives that information. Then when she gets married, there is a special ceremony where she shares that information with her husband, then they enter the celestial room together (like bismark said).

There is nothing scandalous here. It's just sacred. Like any other part of the temple ceremony.

[bismark]

I told her to say that because I knew I would be called an apostate if I did.

[vorpal blade]

Yes, Dragon Lady, you said what I was trying to say. And I think you said it in an appropriate manner. My point was that the bishop was probably trying to protect the feelings of the young lady if the marriage should be cancelled. He would have a hard time explaining his reasons to someone who wasn't familiar with the endowment ceremony.

I hoped I could be vague and just leave it at that. Perhaps this topic was not a good idea.

[NerdGirl]

Yeah, it used to drive me crazy when people told me I would know what they were talking about after I had been to the temple. And I've "been to the temple" for about 8 years now and I still don't know what half of them were talking about.

[C is for]

My sister, that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, is getting married this week. The morning of, right before the sealing, they will do the veil ceremony.

So there you go. I think that's how this temple does things, no matter how soon before you get your endowments (and she got hers a month ago).

[crmeatball]

Generally, the veil ceremony is conducted with the husband, so long as the marriage is less than one week away. If the sister receives her endowments more than a week or so before the actual marriage, the veil ceremony is not conducted with the husband until right before the actual sealing. I am not sure if this is a policy set by each local temple president, or by the Church, but I have seen this as fairly universal in the different temple districts where I have served in bishoprics.

The timing of going to the temple is another interesting discussion. Generally, we receive our endowments prior to leaving on a mission or getting married. However, I once had a general authority instruct me that if the endowment were not necessary for these two events, no one would go through this ceremony until after they were 30 years old. He said it was because until we are about that age, we are generally not ready for the instruction and covenants received in the temple. Since they are required for serving a mission (see 1 Nephi 21:21-23 or Isa 49:21-23) or being sealed, those covenants are made at a younger age, but if those two events do not occur, the instruction given to stake presidents and bishops is that the individual (male or female) should wait until they are "about" 30 years old so they are sufficiently mature.

The exact timing of making these covenants is really up to the bishop and the stake president. They have been set apart as judges in Israel and have the mantle place upon them to make such decisions. The general rule is that a temple recommend (for living ordinance) should not be issued until someone is engaged to be married, with a scheduled sealing appointment with a temple, or they have received (not submitted papers) a mission call. Once those requirements have been met, a bishop, through interviews, will determine when a person was ready to enter the House of the Lord. It could be someone is given a recommend the day after an engagement or mission call. Or the bishop may make someone wait until the week or two before. In my case, the bishop made me wait until 3 weeks before I reported to the MTC. He asked me to quit my job at that point and to make attending the temple full time my "job." I did so and it was a wonderful experience.

As for engaged couples, the same is true. One couple I am aware of, the bishop sent them to the temple (the brother went to war instead of a mission and was not endowed) sent them to the temple to make covenants 6 weeks before their marriage. Why? The bishop felt they were getting too close and felt they needed the extra protection by making sacred covenants. My point is, the timing of such ordiances lies not in our hands, but in the hands of duly called servants, who have been set apart that they might have the inspiration to know what is best. Often, we set our own schedules, centered around our ideal plan of our mission or marriage. But we need to be prepared for when the bishop and stake president say it is appropriate.

[bismark]

As a data point: we did the veil ceremony Friday morning in Draper and then the sealing on Saturday morning in SLC.

[Dragon Lady]

Just as a point of interest, when I went through the temple a few years ago for no good reason other than I wanted to, I was 24. I had actually started trying to get that ball rolling a few years earlier, but my bishop said I was too young and kept asking me if I wanted to go on a mission. I moved wards (not because of that) and tried with my new bishop. He said the same thing. Then one day he told me that policy was being changed and the official "old" age to receive your endowment was now 24. And because God loves me, I was just about to turn 24. Apparently bishops all over were placing their own "old" age, some letting very young girls go through and others making you wait until you were 30+. So they decided to standardize it.

So it's 24 as of a few years ago.

[crmeatball]

Actually, there is no official "age" set as policy. It is left to the bishop to determine.