Social relations are one of the most prominent themes of The Urantia Book. Undoubtedly, it is primarily a religious publication, but it is from this perspective that we are all God’s children; and consequently siblings. Therefore, if you look at the practical aspect of the papers, human relationships seem to come to the fore.
The Urantia Book touches on the subject of marriage many times. And it does so in detail. You will learn about the mechanisms that led to the creation of marriage, its gradual evolution, changes in regulations, as well as traditions and rituals known to this day; particular attention is paid to the primary purpose of such unions – the family.
On the other hand however, in the maze of this enormity of material, it is difficult to find unambiguous instructions. If you are already somewhat familiar with The Urantia Book, it will not surprise you that there are no commandments or authoritative recommendations. You will not read what an earthly marriage must look like to be blessed, nor are there any commands or prohibitions about divorce. The authors of the papers outline the ideas or goals of the issues discussed, although they leave the development of all the rules to us, as always.
In this case, it is good because there are quite often examples. So you will learn what mating was like in the times of Adam and Eve’s Eden and long before; also about the marital customs of a nearby, but more developed, planet similar to Earth. Something has also been said about the relationships of spiritual beings. The teachings of Michael of Nebadon during his time on Urantia as Jesus of Nazareth may also in some way illustrate how marriage should be properly treated. At the same time, another plundered outpost of religious organizations is falling apart.
In this post, I will try to summarize the genesis of the institution of marriage described in The Urantia Book; I will use the examples mentioned above to summarize the related papers. I will also touch on the issue of ceremonies and customs. However, I always encourage you to reach for the source.
Definition
The Urantia Papers do not explicitly define marriage. They treat the word itself as a kind of synonym for a relatively stable relationship between a man and a woman. The word “marriage” therefore indicates a relationship in which they have come to find each other. It is not important how civilized such a couple is, or whether or who blessed them; no matter how they came together. If a relationship is formed that can become a family, it is automatically referred to as marriage. Whether a man like a savage kidnapped and callously enslaved his woman, or as today after a fruitful courtship proposed to, take oaths before his family (and God), in both cases it will be marriage. It is important to remember, that what we now consider marriage—a religiously systematized and legally sanctioned union — is not marriage as understood in The Urantia Book. Such marriage of course, is still a marriage, but such a broad definition also includes, for example, cohabitation. Taboos, customs or laws to regulate relationships simply exist. The book quotes them rather out of chronicle duty, or to highlight their influences or our mistakes, so that we can see how we are progressing. It is never presented as a model or a commanded necessity.
Not only in photos
It may not be marriage itself, but its immediate consequence, the family, that is presented in The Urantia Book as one of the most important manifestations of humanity. A good family reveals to parents the Creator’s attitude toward his children; True parents present to their offspring “first of a long series of ascending disclosures of the love of the Paradise parent of all universe children.” The family is the structural basis of society. In the Papers it is called the achievement which binds the evolution of the biological relationships of man and woman with the social relationship of husband and wife; marriage, since it leads to the foundation of a family, is “the mother of all kinds of human institutions”.
Marriage, while not in itself related to biological evolution, is a direct consequence of bisexuality. It is the basis of social evolution, and as an institution, it is its image seen through the prism of the biological instinct for the preservation of the species. Family life is the sum of such evolutionary adjustments, and the quality of the family determines the quality of society as a whole. So, those who say that it is the society that shapes the family are wrong, because it is the family that shapes the whole society.
Marriage, with children and consequent family life, is stimulative of the highest potentials in human nature and simultaneously provides the ideal avenue for the expression of these quickened attributes of mortal personality. The family provides for the biologic perpetuation of the human species. The home is the natural social arena wherein the ethics of blood brotherhood may be grasped by the growing children. The family is the fundamental unit of fraternity in which parents and children learn those lessons of patience, altruism, tolerance, and forbearance which are so essential to the realization of brotherhood among all men.
84:7.28 (941.9)
What God has joined together…
The luck element, that in spite of all premarital tests certain marriages turned out bad, led primitive man to seek insurance protection against marriage failure; led him to go in quest of priests and magic. And this movement culminated directly in modern church weddings. But for a long time marriage was generally recognized as consisting in the decisions of the contracting parents—later of the pair—while for the last five hundred years church and state have assumed jurisdiction and now presume to make pronouncements of marriage.
83:4.9 (925.5)
Notwithstanding its strong exaltation of the family, the Urantia Papers unequivocally indicate that it is an exclusively social institution. But marriage, although called the most exalted human institution, should never be called a sacrament. True, there is a pattern of marriage — on the system capitals the Material Sons and Daughters live in such ideal relationships —yet even the best mortal marriage is simply and exclusively human. The Urantia Book takes out of the hands of the priests the usurped power to bestow divine majesty upon human associations.
It is the family and only the family that is the guarantor of the stability of the marriage. Not someone’s stamp or aspersorium sprinkle. And while marriages may or may not be encouraged on high, whatever they may be, they do not receive God’s blessing. Religion, of course, will influence marriage as well as the family, but it should never have a monopoly on them. And the Church still claims such rights. The family is the product of evolution. Marriage as a social institution; and never be sacred, certainly not because any of us has granted himself the right to make and call it so.
It is also unfortunate that certain groups of mortals have conceived of marriage as being consummated by divine action. Such beliefs lead directly to the concept of the indissolubility of the marital state regardless of the circumstances or wishes of the contracting parties. But the very fact of marriage dissolution itself indicates that Deity is not a conjoining party to such unions. If God has once joined any two things or persons together, they will remain thus joined until such a time as the divine will decrees their separation. But, regarding marriage, which is a human institution, who shall presume to sit in judgment, to say which marriages are unions that might be approved by the universe supervisors in contrast with those which are purely human in nature and origin?
83:8.4 (929.7)
And that I’m unlikely to leave you
Although engagement fantasies rarely come true, marriage has always been the “highest aspiration of idealism.” This type of idealistic approach, according to the authors of the papers, is most advisable. Expectations always stimulate the search for happiness; even if the unfulfilled ones hurt.
The problem of divorce results to the greatest extent from the naivety and thoughtlessness of young people. And this is how we raise them. Instead of learning about the reality in which they will undoubtedly find themselves after marriage, they hear about divine destiny, princes on white steeds and other missing halves. When the papers say that “youthful idealism should be softened with a dose of premarital sobering up”, we are already imposing marital pressure on young people; when we say that “the greatest responsibility for the growing tendency of divorce in Westerners is inflated imaginations and fantastic romances of courtship”, we poison them with pornos and romantic comedies. How can someone who grew up in a safe, self-centered bubble communicate with someone equally spoiled? And now have to live with it? I doubt that the Church’s premarital teachings would bring anything wiser to this.
But just so long as society fails to properly educate children and youths, so long as the social order fails to provide adequate premarital training, and so long as unwise and immature youthful idealism is to be the arbiter of the entrance upon marriage, just so long will divorce remain prevalent. And in so far as the social group falls short of providing marriage preparation for youths, to that extent must divorce function as the social safety valve which prevents still worse situations during the ages of the rapid growth of the evolving mores.
83:7.8 (929.2)
I have not witnessed any criticism of divorce in the Urantia Papers, and certainly not from a divine perspective. Nor have I found anything that can be taken as approval; divorces motivated by whim are even supposed to reverse our social evolution. In the understanding of the book, however, divorce is nothing more than a natural and unavoidable tool for regulating interpersonal relationships in an immature society. Although the authors of the book admit that earthly marriage is of a “high standard,” a hasty, butterfly-motivated wedding is no better way to form a family than the barbaric practices that encourage the mating of our ancient ancestors. In fact, some marriages at that time were more durable than those today!
The Urantia Book also sheds some light on the present ecclesiastical marriage restrictions. Jesus was repeatedly asked for his opinion on divorce. And who if not him should be an authority here? Inquisitive students wanted to know what law would be the best in his opinion; Provocative opponents tried to involve him in conflict with the already functioning divorce law. And though the Master regarded marriage as the nearest of the perfection of all human relationships, and he openly proclaimed the truth of its highest ideals, though he elevated home life to the highest human duty, he never expressed an unequivocal attitude regarding divorce.
To the Apostles he said: “I have not come to make laws, but to enlighten. I have not come to reform the kingdoms of this world, but to establish the kingdom of heaven. It is not the Father’s will that I yield to the temptation to teach you governance, commerce or social rules which, good as they are today, will be unsuitable for the society of another age. I am on Earth only to comfort minds, liberate the spirit and save human souls. But with that question about divorce in mind, I will say that while Moses viewed these things favorably, it was not so in Adam’s day or in the Garden”.
From the broadest perspective, Jesus supported only those teachings that granted women the same rights as men. In the context of divorce, he did not approve only of what could give the man any advantage. That is why his messages are still valid today. (In those days, Jewish customs allowed a man to divorce for trivial reasons: Because his wife was a poor cook or a poor housewife; even because he fell in love with another woman. The Pharisees taught that this convenient form of divorce was a special dispensation granted to the Jewish nation; in particular…).
He said: “My brother, always remember that a man has no legal authority over a woman unless a woman willingly and freely grants him such authority. Your wife has pledged to walk with you through life, to help you through adversity, and to take on most of the burden of bearing and raising your children; And in return for this special kind of service, it is only fair that she receives from you that special care that a man can offer to a woman as a partner who must carry, bear and raise children. The loving care and understanding which a man is willing to bestow upon his wife and children is the measure of his attainment of higher levels of creative and spiritual self-awareness. Do you not know that man and woman, because they cooperate with Him in creating beings that grow up to possess the potential of immortal souls, are partners of God? The Father in heaven looks upon the Spirit Mother of the children of the universe as his equal. It is like God to share life and all that goes with it on equal terms with a partner, a mother, who fully shares with you this divine experience of duplicating yourselves in the lives of your children. If you know how to love your children as God loves you, you will love and care for your wife even as the heavenly Father honors and glorifies the Infinite Spirit, the mother of all spirit children in the far-flung universe”.
Jesus was consistent in his resolutions. He did not want to change the marital customs or laws in any way; nor did he ever intend to establish new ones. However, some of his followers had their own views on these topics. And though the Master did not share them, after his death they readily attributed them to him as well. Hence the many erroneous claims now made by religious organizations; not only those related to marriage.
It should not escape us that, although Jesus did give great importance to the family, he also pointed out that the biological family is temporary, it will not survive the material death of its members. He himself did not hesitate to turn his back on his family when they opposed the will of his Father in heaven.
Continuing the theme of divorce, I will mention the regulations that are in force on the inhabited planet similar to Earth mentioned in the introduction. Although The Urantia Book does not give much information on this subject, we can find that it is relatively mild; and the same for all. Divorces there, as requested by the interested parties, are decided by the courts. Despite the simplicity of the solution, the actual divorce can be obtained no earlier than one year after the receipt of such an application; and a year on this planet lasts much longer than here. Although it is relatively easy to separate, thanks to proper premarital education and more mature than our rules for contracting marriages (which will be discussed later), the number of divorces is proportionally one tenth that of the civilized races of Urantia.
From The Urantia Book, between the lines of analysis of the end of something that was never to end, there is a subtle encouragement. Hope that we will want to understand that it is not divorces that destroy families, but lies and fairy tales in which we still allow young people to believe naively. We celebrate love, we glorify marriage, but we do not try to talk honestly about either of them.
From the beginning
MATERIAL necessity founded marriage, sex hunger embellished it, religion sanctioned and exalted it, the state demanded and regulated it, while in later times evolving love is beginning to justify and glorify marriage as the ancestor and creator of civilization’s most useful and sublime institution, the home. And home building should be the center and essence of all educational effort.
84:0.1 (931.1)
Contrary to what it may seem, marriage did not arise directly on the foundation of sexual relationships. The first people were just humans. They were not very different from animals. They didn’t need marriage, even in the simplest sense of the word, for anything — they simply relieved sexual tension.
Especially since they were not the brightest either. For a long time, they did not notice the relationship between sex and pregnancy. The savage believed that pregnancy was the consequence of the entrance of an evolving spirit into woman. Sex was therefore in no way associated with responsibility for the offspring or for the partner. And since the sea was often associated with ghosts, women were more afraid of bathing than sex. Deformed or premature babies were considered to be young animals that had penetrated the woman’s body during such dangerous sea baths; or as a result of some other hostile activity of spirits. Of course, savages did not hesitate to kill such offspring immediately after birth. Pregnancy could also be the result of a spell or even a diet; the beginning of life was sometimes associated with sunlight or breathing.
In practice, reproduction was simply animal, completely devoid of deeper ideas and colorful embellishments that we know today. Sexual desires were not something that primitive people really bothered with. They just had them. For the wildling, the basic motivational stimulus was hunger.
Over time, however, when the progress of civilization guarantees easier access to food, the sexual drive begins to make itself felt more and more. Therefore, there becomes a need for social regulation. Nature does not take individuals into account; nor what we call morality. Nature insists on breeding. It even forces you to survive. So the drive does its job, but we have to solve the problems that arise on our own. Animal reproduction is driven by instinctive cyclicality. Our sexual drive in the course of evolution cease to be periodic, so imposing some form of self-control on an individual and at some point becomes a social necessity.
The primary function of marriage is to insure survival; the real purpose of the family is the perpetuation of the race. And it is here that we find the genesis of the institution of marriage. Marriage was a reaction of the social organism to the biological tension of individuals. Drive is a biological mechanism, mating is instinctive. Developing societies are always accompanied by the evolution of mores. And these primarily concern interpersonal relationships. Therefore, the history of the evolution of marriage may be called the history of sexual control. No matter how much we would like it; there is not an ounce of holiness or romanticism here.
The mating instinct is one of the dominant physical driving forces of human beings; it is the one emotion which, in the guise of individual gratification, effectively tricks selfish man into putting race welfare and perpetuation high above individual ease and personal freedom from responsibility.
82:1.7 (914.3)
The Urantia Book, an almost entirely religious publication, makes even more of these controversial claims. According to its provisions, the sinful sex drive changes a selfish person for the better. Sexual relationships, of course, bring satisfaction and satisfy selfishness, but at the same time they make the savage want to do something for someone for the first time on his own. And this requires self-denial and altruism. In order to find ourselves in family duties, we must become more and more selfless. Sexual tension thus becomes an unexpected and unrecognized factor civilizing humanity. The drive automatically and reliably forces you to think; and in the end it leads to love. Of course, it does not guarantee cooperation in starting a family; but it’s a good start.
Sexual attraction was (is!) the driving force behind the institution of marriage, although it was created and shaped by mores. However, it is not that simple, because interpersonal relationships are a system of interconnected vessels. We cannot forget about property, and religion would also like to take a piece of this pie. According to the Urantia Papers, possessions were (and are!) the stabilizers of marriage, religion the moralizer.
Notwithstanding the personality gulf between men and women, the sex urge is sufficient to insure their coming together for the reproduction of the species. This instinct operated effectively long before humans experienced much of what was later called love, devotion, and marital loyalty. Mating is an innate propensity, and marriage is its evolutionary social repercussion
82:1.1 (913.4)
It’s the inside that counts
At the dawn of marriage, selection and romantic love not mattered at all. The first spouses did not spend much time together. Sometimes they didn’t even eat together. Contrary to appearances, their possible attachment did not result from the intimacy they shared through sex. They became nice to each other mainly because they lived and worked together on a daily basis.
To primitive man, woman was not a beloved, partner, friend, or even mistress; rather was she a part of his property—a slave or a servant. In the animal world, physical strength plays a major role, and women are weaker by nature. In order to mitigate their captivity, they had to show cunning.
The echoes of this cunning resound to this day. Yes, we are still talking about sex. Women learned the power of their charms very early. Sex requires cooperation, so it has given them room for maneuver where they can influence their position. So it turns out that sex has always been the most effective female method of obtaining benefits. Today, this is a sign of calculation, but at that time it was the only way for men to see women as something more than service animals. Man dominated the hunts and battles, but in the privacy of their homes it was women who manipulated (still manipulate?) even the most uncouth ones. Women, discreetly trading their charms, were able to control men stronger than themselves, even when they kept them in extreme captivity.
But all such tricks must have aroused distrust in primitive men. They could not understand women. On the one hand, they treated them with fearful fascination, and on the other hand, with suspicion and contempt. For a long time they believed that a woman had no soul; so they were not given names. Sometimes even a woman’s shadow was considered dangerous. Personality differences based on gender only contributed to this. What can I say anyway – is all this so far from the current reality?
We
Male and female are, practically regarded, two distinct varieties of the same species living in close and intimate association. Their viewpoints and entire life reactions are essentially different; they are wholly incapable of full and real comprehension of each other. Complete understanding between the sexes is not attainable.
84:6.3 (938.7)
Mating is natural. Passion is a biological impulse that brings men and women together, but marriage is purely sociological. In order for them to stay together for longer, they need something more – the customs of society. Gender differences, no matter how circular, are essential in all this. Marriage, as defined in The Urantia Book, is the co-operation of opposites. We do not have to replace each other, but we should complement each other. A man and a woman, when they work together, even apart from their families, will have an advantage in most areas of life, both over two men and over two women.
If we break away from earth for a moment, we learn from the papers that many superhuman orders of grand universe creatures are also created and function in two phases of personality manifestation. Among the Material Sons and the Midsonites these differences are designated male and female, as among men. Among the Morontia Companions, seraphim, and cherubim they are called “positive” or “offensive” and “negative” or “yielding.” These types of double relationships not only help us overcome limitations, but increase the versatility of cooperation.
We need each other, both now and later, when biologically the sexes cease to exist. And this will not change. These two “basic human varieties” will never cease to be interested in each other. We will stimulate, motivate and help each other. The sexes will remain dependent on each other and will always cooperate effectively precisely because of the differences between them.
They
The modern idea of sex equality is beautiful and worthy of an expanding civilization, but it is not found in nature. When might is right, man lords it over woman; when more justice, peace, and fairness prevail, she gradually emerges from slavery and obscurity. Woman’s social position has generally varied inversely with the degree of militarism in any nation or age.
84:5.3 (936.7)
Despite all the frictions of the former human couples, despite the completely loose relationship they had, and thanks to even a minimal partnership, their chances of survival increased significantly. Let’s not forget that we are talking about the beginnings of society. The resulting division of labor based on gender contributed to the increase in the comfort of life and happiness. The institution of marriage guarantees the preservation of the species, but also mitigates differences.
There are no biological incentives to a man to marry, much less to keep him in marriage. Primitive man knew no love. Sex did not impose any biological consequences on him. He was closer to the woman for a longer time by hunger and shelter, which she prepared for herself and her children. On the other hand, the woman, due to her physical and emotional relationship with her offspring, was completely dependent on the stronger man. She was pushed to marry by the need for a safe shelter and the man’s physical strength with the pressure of later customs forced her to remain in relationship.
Of course, over time, the status of women became better and better. According to the records of The Urantia Book, woman’s position in society is a good criterion for judging the development of the marriage institution. The very evolution of marriage is a good measure of the advancement of human civilization. The tribes that invariably treated woman as a subspecies did not survive, although to this day in many places she still has not freed herself from the control of man. Even in highly developed countries, movements to protect women are still a silent affirmation of male superiority. It is said that the woman fought for her rights. And isn’t it sometimes the case that the man just lets her have them?
At this point, the Bible presents other interesting conclusions. In the past, the basic value of a woman, in addition to giving birth to children, was based on the production and processing of food. Evolving science – inventions and industry, or rather the resulting prosperity has enabled women to operate freely in the space in which they seem to feel most at home. In the family and even if some emancipated women disagree; it’s hard to deny that technology is their true liberator.
The Urantia Book says that in the perpetuation of the species woman is equal to man. However, on a daily basis, he functions in a decidedly unfavorable situation. This inequality resulting from forced motherhood can be mitigated only by the mores and by the growing sense of justice in man. These are the seeds of marriage by our definition. Women’s sexual standards had to change, because they are the ones who suffer the most consequences of promiscuity. Men’s standards change primarily as a result of a sense of honesty.
From the broadest perspective, both sexes have their own individual and favorite maneuvering areas. These fields overlap, although the maternal instinct definitely hinders, often even prevents a woman from actually competing, e.g. in business. Either way, each sex will forever remain perfect in its own area, determined by mental difference and biological diversity. Women’s rights are not men’s rights. A woman will not develop based on the rights of a man; a man will not develop if he is given women’s rights. However, in relationships, our relationships should be based on an intelligent and voluntary, and therefore sincere, partnership. On the more developed planets of the grand universe, gender equality is complete, and this is what evolution is consistently moving towards.
From the bottom…
Primitive man was willing to oppress another, and woman was the first slave.
Providing meat was the man’s responsibility. A woman’s duty was to provide plant food. In such an earliest, pre-pastoral society, we co-operated with each other, and contrary to what logic suggests, man was not the cruelest in relation to the fair sex. Hard times for women were yet to come with the spread of animal farming.
Animal farming reduced woman to the level of a social slave. Its status gradually declined. She was busy growing crops as before, while the man only had to look after his flocks to ensure the abundance of meat. According to the traditions, at the end of the pastoral age, a woman was only slightly higher in the hierarchy than a human animal, destined to work and give birth to offspring. She was a creature that supplemented food, an animal of burden, and a companion who endured insults without violent reaction; and she was always at hand as a means of sexual gratification. Men loved their cattle rather than women.
It is still a time when man did not regulate the relationships between the sexes in any way. For reasons of sexual promiscuity, even prostitution did not exist. Early peoples exhibited animal passion, but they had not the slightest imagination, and physical attraction was wholly irrelevant to them.
However, it was then that the first manifestations of the family, which consisted in the relationship between mother and child, were being established. Marriage would result from the mores, but the mother’s affection for her child was natural and compelled primitive woman to endure a great deal of discomfort. The maternal instinct invariably puts a woman at a disadvantage in the midst of her social struggles with a man. Of course, the relationship between mother and child is not a complete family, much less a marriage. However, it is the seed from which both are formed.
The beginnings of women’s liberation came later and also from an unexpected point of view – thanks to the more humane treatment of prisoners. For a completely primitive man, the work of cultivating the land was not adventurous enough, it was an insult to bravery and there was also a superstition that women grow better plants. At some point, however, instead of killing the captives, they began to be enslaved and used to work on the land. This was the first step in getting the man to agree to do what had hitherto been considered purely feminine work—to cultivate the land. Thanks to this, the woman could start devoting more time to children and household chores.
First marriage
In the earliest stages of tribal development the mores and restrictive taboos were very crude, but they did keep the sexes apart—this favored quiet, order, and industry—and the long evolution of marriage and the home had begun. The sex customs of dress, adornment, and religious practices had their origin in these early taboos which defined the range of sex liberties and thus eventually created concepts of vice, crime, and sin. But it was long the practice to suspend all sex regulations on high festival days, especially May Day.
82:2.4 (915.2)
Mores — rules that can be called matrimonial and with them matrimonial restrictions appeared automatically with the formation of social groups. So, it can be said that the institution of marriage was created somehow by the way. The Ancients married for the benefit and good of the group. The first marriage was primarily an economic transaction. Therefore, the relationships of that time were planned and arranged by parents or leaders. There was little courtship at the same time. This is also where the wedding ceremony comes from — marriage was the interest of the group, so the celebrations had to be also in group.
Before barter, our ancestors simply plundered other tribes. I mention this because there is a clear analogy in the genesis of marriage: before it became a peaceful agreement between two people, it was preceded by kidnapping. Contrary to appearances, women did not have to be against it at all. In order to free themselves from the domination of the elders of their own tribe, they often preferred to fall into the hands of a peer from another tribe. Over time, the mock abduction became an element of a normal wedding ceremony (carrying the bride over the threshold of a new house is a remnant of those customs). Such a supposedly escape was a transitional stage between the abduction by force and the subsequent courtship.
When theft of property became a crime with the progress of civilization, adequate marriage regulations were also introduced. The woman was invariably property. First his father, and then, when he passed on the right to possession, his husband. Adultery has thus become a form of theft. Today’s holy books of the most popular religious organizations still contain records of the inferiority of woman as man’s property. Marriage, in addition to purely sexual relationships, also helped to regulate matters of descent and inheritance. Have you ever wondered why Catholic priests should live in celibate?
In the early history of marriage the unmarried women belonged to the men of the tribe. Later on, a woman had only one husband at a time. This practice of one-man-at-a-time was the first step away from the promiscuity of the herd. While a woman was allowed but one man, her husband could sever such temporary relationships at will. But these loosely regulated associations were the first step toward living pairwise in distinction to living herdwise. In this stage of marriage development children usually belonged to the mother.
83:5.1 (925.6)
Though not very intelligent, the ancients were not naive. They did not trust love or promises. Over time, they noticed that the marriage relationship must be secured in order to be permanent. Wives were bought, and the price the husband paid was a kind of deposit that was forfeited in the event of abandonment of the wife or divorce. To this day, in many cultures, the white man’s wife is considered worthless; after all, it costs nothing…
The first marriages were therefore completely self-interested. In addition to a typically material investment, they could be a way to improve one’s social position – in some cultures, having a wife was something differentiating; sometimes they were treated as a socio-political duty — a source of new members of the group. Some wild people treated their wedding day as the moment of entering the path of adulthood, so they looked forward to it from an early age. Over time, unsurprisingly, marriage also developed as a religious compulsion. It was believed, for example, that the lonely could not enter the world of spirits. It was as a result of such fears — in order not to sin or to avoid disgrace — that marriages between children were arranged, already at the moment of their birth and sometimes even earlier. Even if it was to be siblings (According to The Urantia Book papers there is no biological instinct that prevents close relatives from marrying. The prohibitions on family weddings are purely sociological.) For the old, superstitious peoples, even the deceased had to be in a relationship. It was out of this need that the profession of matchmaker arose: the parents of a deceased, single child engaged an intermediary who negotiated marriage with the family of a deceased child from another family.
Family
Pair marriage favors and fosters that intimate understanding and effective co-operation which is best for parental happiness, child welfare, and social efficiency. Marriage, which began in crude coercion, is gradually evolving into a magnificent institution of self-culture, self-control, self-expression, and self-perpetuation.
83:6.8 (928.1)
The customs regulating the biological drives of the first people develop with them, and centuries later they become what we now call marriage. However, marriage is not the overriding goal in all this; at most, a means to it. All this confusion, though originally for the preservation of the species, is the foundation for the highest manifestation of humanity — the family.
However, we did not discover family ideals on our own. The family, in the sense of the partnership of one man and one woman in the rearing of offspring, dates from the days of Dalamatia, when the local universe Son of God, the Planetary Prince, descended to earth to stimulate the spiritual progress of mankind. Many years later, the Edenic ideal of the farmer family, which Adam and Eve instilled, also made a great impression on us. This was unheard of—it was the first time in history that men and women had been seen working together. Moreover, the violet race, the offspring of Adam and Eve, is an exclusively monogamous people. As is evident from the Urantia Papers, the early family was not without divine help.
However, it was then, in the days of Dalamatia, some half a million years ago, that the family life that continues to this day began to take shape. We began to live together with our spouses and children, and since we were slowly moving away from the nomadic lifestyle, something that could be called a family home was born. As The Urantia Book points out, the family as a social unit was established only when the Prince’s staff taught men to love their grandchildren and the children of those grandchildren. Of course, the savage man loved his children, but only the civilized man also loves the children of his children (and further). This is one of those features that distinguishes us from animals.
The Future of the Nation
The above distinction was not as clear in this case as it may seem. The ancient peoples did not earn money to have the offspring of great philosophy. What counted were measurable benefits. The children were ordinary workers. Daughters could be sold and sons strengthened the protection of property. Offspring alleviated the fear of loneliness and was a security in old age. Sometimes religious beliefs required procreation of offspring, so a child could protect against sin. Children were supposed to fill the name with pride and fame. All in all, you can also see here that we haven’t changed much over the years… However, at that time it was done without the modern sensitivity. Today’s position of the youngest does not result from parental love for them, but from progress of civilization.
The old people were very afraid of childlessness. And it was not love, but offspring that was the driving force of marriage. So there was no point in staying in relationships in which there were no children. Childlessness was the main (if not the only) cause of divorce at the time (Since we did not understand why certain couples could not have children, we decided that childlessness must be the result of the intrigues of the spirit world which, of course, did not prevent us from accusing only women of infertility. It was believed that childless wives became “serpents in the spirit world”. For this reason, we began to combine weddings with religious rites. Witchcraft was supposed to ensure a fertile and thus happy marriage. To appease the mischievous spirits that disturb marriages, we even used human sacrifice).
The wild man treated his children very harshly. And these, contrary to modern trends, are not forever clumsy rags. The children of that time quickly learned that disobedience could be associated with disability; and even death. Today, a child, even a teenager, is under exaggerated, constant protection, and we regret the fact that he does not know the consequences of his often stupid behavior. According to the book, it is in this overprotection that we should look for the sources of disobedience in children.
Civilization regards the parents as assuming all duties, the child as having all the rights. Respect of the child for his parents arises, not in knowledge of the obligation implied in parental procreation, but naturally grows as a result of the care, training, and affection which are lovingly displayed in assisting the child to win the battle of life. The true parent is engaged in a continuous service-ministry which the wise child comes to recognize and appreciate.
84:7.26 (941.7)
The Urantia Book in no way commands that offspring be treated according to the standards of our animal ancestors. He does not order anything. It is difficult to find direct parental advice there. Let me repeat – we always have to draw conclusions on our own. However, we can learn what Jesus taught about raising children, such as:
For more than an hour Jesus and John continued this discussion of home life. The Master went on to explain to John how a child is wholly dependent on his parents and the associated home life for all his early concepts of everything intellectual, social, moral, and even spiritual since the family represents to the young child all that he can first know of either human or divine relationships. The child must derive his first impressions of the universe from the mother’s care; he is wholly dependent on the earthly father for his first ideas of the heavenly Father. The child’s subsequent life is made happy or unhappy, easy or difficult, in accordance with his early mental and emotional life, conditioned by these social and spiritual relationships of the home. A human being’s entire afterlife is enormously influenced by what happens during the first few years of existence.
177:2.5 (1922.3)
Earlier, he had said to John (Mark):
I know you will prove loyal to the gospel of the kingdom because I can depend upon your present faith and love when these qualities are grounded upon such an early training as has been your portion at home. You are the product of a home where the parents bear each other a sincere affection, and therefore you have not been overloved so as injuriously to exalt your concept of self-importance. Neither has your personality suffered distortion in consequence of your parents’ loveless maneuvering for your confidence and loyalty, the one against the other. You have enjoyed that parental love which insures laudable self-confidence and which fosters normal feelings of security. But you have also been fortunate in that your parents possessed wisdom as well as love; and it was wisdom which led them to withhold most forms of indulgence and many luxuries which wealth can buy while they sent you to the synagogue school along with your neighborhood playfellows, and they also encouraged you to learn how to live in this world by permitting you to have original experience. You came over to the Jordan, where we preached and John’s disciples baptized, with your young friend Amos. Both of you desired to go with us. When you returned to Jerusalem, your parents consented; Amos’s parents refused; they loved their son so much that they denied him the blessed experience which you have had, even such as you this day enjoy. By running away from home, Amos could have joined us, but in so doing he would have wounded love and sacrificed loyalty. Even if such a course had been wise, it would have been a terrible price to pay for experience, independence, and liberty. Wise parents, such as yours, see to it that their children do not have to wound love or stifle loyalty in order to develop independence and enjoy invigorating liberty when they have grown up to your age.
(1921.6) 177:2.2
Love, John, is the supreme reality of the universe when bestowed by all-wise beings, but it is a dangerous and oftentimes semiselfish trait as it is manifested in the experience of mortal parents. When you get married and have children of your own to rear, make sure that your love is admonished by wisdom and guided by intelligence.
177:2.3 (1922.1)
“Your young friend Amos believes this gospel of the kingdom just as much as you, but I cannot fully depend upon him; I am not certain about what he will do in the years to come. His early home life was not such as would produce a wholly dependable person. Amos is too much like one of the apostles who failed to enjoy a normal, loving, and wise home training. Your whole afterlife will be more happy and dependable because you spent your first eight years in a normal and well-regulated home. You possess a strong and well-knit character because you grew up in a home where love prevailed and wisdom reigned. Such a childhood training produces a type of loyalty which assures me that you will go through with the course you have begun.
177:2.4 (1922.2)
My wife, my heart
The institution of the family is also the institution that significantly influenced the social status of women. First wives were invariably required to work and care for children, but among some peoples a woman who gave birth to a child before marriage could be worth more. Sometimes, tribes practiced trial marriages — the ceremony took place only after the woman became pregnant; or right after childbirth. The parents had to buy the infertile wife back, and the actual marriage did not take place at that time. The Urantia Book quite aptly compares these trial marriages to many today, when couples, swearing “I will not leave you until I die,” have in their minds the thought, “If we do something, we will get divorced.” When children appeared, the marriage ceremony united the early humans in pairs forever.
It was different among tribes in which property customs prevailed. There, female chastity was an additional advantage. The father cared about the virginity of his daughters because they had more commercial value at the time. The bride’s fee was the equivalent of the efforts he had put into the proper upbringing of his virtuous daughter. Often, in order to be sure of their purity, fathers imprisoned their daughters for years; even in cages. Brides considered by the mother of the groom to be deprived of virginity were rejected. They later became the first professional prostitutes.
… to the top
The woman has never had an easy life. But The Urantia Book tells us that these primitive ones did not pity themselves—they accepted the reality they found it. For a long time, they were denied the right to decide about themselves in the context of marriage, but the smarter ones learned to circumvent such restrictions. It was usually the man who initiated the courtship, whatever it was, but women, albeit secretly, were already able to get what they wanted the most. With the development of civilization, a woman’s will to choose a spouse is definitely increasing, but do today’s rules of mating look very different?
In time, some tribes began to provide a woman with marriage tests, allowing them to choose from bachelors. Such tests included fighting skills, hunting or family support, which is not at all unheard of nowadays (although less officially). Sometimes the groom was required to enter the bride’s family for a certain period; with his work and character, he had to prove that he was worthy of the wife he was applying for. A woman has always wanted marriage (or rather a family) and in one way or another she was able to bring it about.
Eventually, certain peoples began to give women the right to force their spouses to vow fidelity. Ancestor worship fostered monogamy, so later Greeks and Romans also supported it. It is also favored by the Christian error of treating marriage as a sacrament. Civilization, or rather the ever-increasing standard of living, makes it impossible for a modern man to keep more wives.
In the ideals of pair marriage, woman has finally won recognition, dignity, independence, equality, and education; but will she prove worthy of all this new and unprecedented accomplishment? Will modern woman respond to this great achievement of social liberation with idleness, indifference, barrenness, and infidelity? Today, in the twentieth century, woman is undergoing the crucial test of her long world existence!
84:5.10 (937.7)
Evolution, stupid!
The first step in enlightenment came with the belief that sex relations opened up the way for the impregnating ghost to enter the female. Man has since discovered that father and mother are equal contributors of the living inheritance factors which initiate offspring. But even in the twentieth century many parents still endeavor to keep their children in more or less ignorance as to the origin of human life.
84:1.5 (932.2)
Mating has undergone a lot of changes. From the stage of practically unfettered sexual freedom and copulation in a herd, through many adaptations and variants, to today’s almost complete sexual restrictions; from the appearance of simple property marriage standards to the union of one man and one woman creating a family.
The institution of marriage is also changing. Group marriages, family marriages, polygamy and polyandry are the stages accompanying human evolution. And while the first monogamous relationships were the result of poverty, and monogamy itself is to evolutionary man “cultural and social, artificial and unnatural,” it is the union of one man to one woman that is designated in The Urantia Book as “the idealistic goal of human sex evolution” and “the measure of the progress of social civilization”.
In the course of evolution, though supported by property and religion, the marriage institution has many times almost completely disappeared. Her most trivial protective mechanism, however, is invariably the most effective: a man and a woman cannot live without each other. It doesn’t matter if they are the most primitive savages or the most cultured human beings.
The modern trend toward singleness indicates a temporary breakdown in marital mores; or a transformation in them. Interestingly, the writers of the Urantia Papers claim that the present-day institution of marriage has become unstable because of the sudden substitution of idealized but individual love for the old and ingrained motive of ownership. Where individual choice plays a major role, marriage will be marred by widespread discontent. While the book repeatedly acknowledges the advancement of this earthly institution, it often warns against losing oneself in the search for self-satisfaction. We cannot satisfy the hunger of the soul by selfish material pleasures.
Originally, property was the basic institution of selfmaintenance, while marriage functioned as the unique institution of selfperpetuation. Although food satisfaction, play, and humor, along with periodic sex indulgence, were means of self-gratification, it remains a fact that the evolving mores have failed to build any distinct institution of selfgratification. And it is due to this failure to evolve specialized techniques of pleasurable enjoyment that all human institutions are so completely shot through with this pleasure pursuit. Property accumulation is becoming an instrument for augmenting all forms of self-gratification, while marriage is often viewed only as a means of pleasure. And this overindulgence, this widely spread pleasure mania, now constitutes the greatest threat that has ever been leveled at the social evolutionary institution of family life, the home.
84:8.2 (942.3)
Marriage, starting from the ownership stage, enters the personal age. This is happening before our eyes, when the pursuit of pleasure in tandem with the development of science is triggered by newer and newer factors of the survival of the species. In the past, children appeared rather by chance, and therefore in groups, so the savages simply abandoned the unwanted ones. Today, we are able to consciously control excessive growth. Equally interesting is the mechanism of evolutionary strengthening of the maternal instinct — each subsequent generation eliminates from the reproductive stream those individuals whose parental instinct was not strong enough. The institution of marriage is developing according to new, also economic principles. Life is becoming more and more expensive, and children, who not so long ago were capital, are becoming debts. Yet, as the book affirms, the security of civilization is invariably based on investment in the welfare of future generations. However, any attempts to transfer parental responsibility to the state or the Church will turn out to be suicidal for humanity.
Let man enjoy himself; let the human race find pleasure in a thousand and one ways; let evolutionary mankind explore all forms of legitimate self-gratification, the fruits of the long upward biologic struggle. Man has well earned some of his present-day joys and pleasures. But look you well to the goal of destiny! Pleasures are indeed suicidal if they succeed in destroying property, which has become the institution of selfmaintenance; and self-gratifications have indeed cost a fatal price if they bring about the collapse of marriage, the decadence of family life, and the destruction of the home—man’s supreme evolutionary acquirement and civilization’s only hope of survival.
84:8.6(943.1)
At heights
Jesus said, “[…] You know that the children of the world may marry and be given in marriage, but you do not seem to understand that those who are accounted worthy to attain the worlds to come by the resurrection of the righteous shall not marry or be given in marriage”.
Marriage as we know it is a typically human institution. This relationship is supposed to perform and does perform essential functions, but it always ends; at the latest with death. However, we will learn from The Urantia Book that there are similar relationships in the spiritual realm. And we can have them as inspirations.
Christ Michael, the Creator Son, is eternally associated with the Mother Spirit of the local universe. “[…] The Master Spirit intrusts to the keeping of the Creator Son a new consort Spirit at the same time entrusting the Spirit consort with eternal loyalty and unending loyalty to the Creator Son”. It is a fully partnership relationship, because the Creator Son “[…] exalts the Universe Mother Spirit to the commonality of authority and recognizes the Spirit-spouse as her equal”. The Michael Son is the sovereign ruler of a local universe, but in all details of this sovereignty the Universe Spirit conjoins him. “While the Spirit always recognizes the Son as ruler and administrator, the Son always accords the Spirit co-ordinate position and equal authority in all the affairs of their realm. The Creator Son in all his loving work and life bestowal is unceasingly and perfectly supported and effectively assisted by the all-wise and ever-faithful Universe Spirit.” Even God the Father Himself, as it appears from the Message quoted at the beginning of this material, “treats the Spiritual Mother of the children of the universe as equals”. What human marital relationships should aim at, however, is most clearly revealed by the following Message:
After this pledge of subordination by the Creative Mother Spirit, Michael of Nebadon nobly acknowledged his eternal dependence on his Spirit companion, constituting the Spirit coruler of his universe domains and requiring all their creatures to pledge themselves in loyalty to the Spirit as they had to the Son; and there issued and went forth the final “Proclamation of Equality.” Though he was the sovereign of this local universe, the Son published to the worlds the fact of the Spirit’s equality with him in all endowments of personality and attributes of divine character. And this becomes the transcendent pattern for the family organization and government of even the lowly creatures of the worlds of space. This is, indeed and in truth, the high ideal of the family and the human institution of voluntary marriage.
33:3.6 (369.1)
Spiritual Bond
I repeat many times with The Urantia Book, the family—the two parents—is the most valuable of all human groups. The sincere personal affections of two men are the “spiritual bonds” which such material associations form into one. These feelings are of great value. And although I have not been able to find even a small fragment directly concerning homosexual relations, in one of the papers it was directly said that a valuable relationship is also possible between people of the same sex. It is true that it is about friendship, so these are only my subjective divagations, but I sincerely doubt that the choice of partner based on gender has any significance in all this. Of course, it is the family in which the offspring appear that is the basis of our development, and the book emphasizes the importance of such relationships time and again; however, not every couple has children. Not every couple has to have children (and not every couple should…). I believe that from a spiritual perspective, it doesn’t matter who we have sex with, because relationships can be empty regardless of the under-blanket configuration. I believe that when a same-sex relationship is sincere, it can be of greater value in God’s eyes than the theoretically blessed ones in which the spouses hate each other for years. Relationships based on friendship and mutual affection always socializes and ennoble, regardless of gender. We should distinguish them from marriage, and therefore from family, but none of us is competent to judge which relationships are valuable and which are not.
The ideal of marriage, which is the foundation of the family, is the union of one man and one woman. Here The Urantia Book does not give much room for interpretation. However, I would be far from concluding that homosexual relations are not approved; especially since they would be sinful. And the insinuations of representatives of religious organizations, that homosexual people are supposed to be some kind of subhumans, simply disgust me.
It is the family that is to be the result of marriage, so it is closely related to bringing up children. And here we can go a step further and say that only a man and a woman, living together, are able to ensure the proper development of their offspring. This is also evident from Jesus’ words quoted earlier. So I think that a homosexual couple (but also a single parent or a family in which the child grows up under the sole supervision of the mother and mothers-in-law) is not a social unit intended for raising children. However, it is not about sexual orientation, but about the range of values that father and mother, only together and individually, can and should pass on to the youngest, because money and comfort are not the measure of proper upbringing in all this.
Defective
Notwithstanding the glorification of the family, The Urantia Book in no way indicates the compulsion to bear or raise offspring. The experience of parenthood is necessary, but all deficiencies, including those resulting from parenthood, we will be able to make up for on the mansion worlds of Jerusem.
Elsewhere in The Urantia Book I have found references suggesting that on the more advanced evolutionary planets growth are strictly regulated and that reproduction itself is the prerogative of objectively the best individuals. Such restrictions seem quite logical, because not only do they prevent overpopulation (and thus overexploitation of natural resources), but they also provide future generations with the best genes. For many reasons, we will not be ready for such restrictions for a long time. However, it confirms my assumptions about the senseless pressure of obligatory procreation and the stupidity of valuing human life through the prism of multiplication.
Not all of us have to become biological parents. It is a mistake to say that the lonely or childless are inferior in the eyes of God. Jesus, although he lived his life to the fullest here, never married on earth and did not beget children (although he experienced parenthood, replacing his deceased father with his numerous siblings).
More than nothing
We are bound by superstitious traditions. Social pressure limits and materialism-driven civilization distorts. And while we glorify love, family, and children, we do not hesitate to use these beautiful expressions of humanity for selfish gain. It doesn’t matter if it’s feminism, the extreme left or the brazen Church. Again, I have the sad impression that there is no area, no matter how pure in its ideas, that we will not try to distort. I probably participate in it myself, but I wish we would be honest with ourselves and our loved ones more often, instead of constantly trying to judge them authoritatively. So that instead of money and smooth skin, we sometimes want to feel the warmth of closeness, to believe in what we really feel, instead of those who always know everything best.
To summarize this important material, I will use the words of Rodan, a Greek philosopher and disciple of Jesus:
“Many noble human impulses die because there is no one who can hear their manifestations. It is really not good for a person to be lonely. A certain degree of knowledge and a certain kind of appreciation are necessary for the development of human character. Without sincere love at home, no child can achieve the full development of normal character. Character is more than just a mentality or morality. Of all the social relations involved in character development, the most effective and ideal is the affectionate and sympathetic friendship of man and woman in the mutual embrace of intelligent marital union. Marriage, with its manifold relationships, is best suited to bring to light those precious impulses and those higher motives which are essential to the development of strong character. I do not hesitate, therefore, to glorify family life since your Master wisely chose the father-child relationship as the real cornerstone of the new gospel of the kingdom. And such a matchless fellowship, man and woman in the tender embrace of the highest ideals of time, is such a precious and satisfying experience that it is worth every price, every sacrifice required to possess it. […] Co-operation with fellows is essential to the renewal of the zeal for life and essential to the maintenance of the courage to fight the battles of attainment of the higher levels of human life. Friendship intensifies joys and glorifies the triumphs of life. Loves, intimate human relationships, strip suffering of its sorrow and poverty of most of its bitterness. […] Personality relationships and mutual feelings are an effective protection against evil. Difficulties, sorrow, disappointment, and failure are more painful and distressing when they are borne alone. Partnership will not transform evil into righteousness, but it will greatly soften its sting. Your Master said: “Blessed are those who mourn”—if there is a friend near you who can comfort. There is genuine strength in the awareness that you live for the good of others and that they also live for the good and development of yours. A lonely man languishes. […] I repeat, such an inspiring and ennobling community finds ideal opportunities in the human marital relationship. There is indeed much to be accomplished in marriage, but many, many marriages fail to bear such moral and spiritual fruit. Marriage is too often contracted by those who seek other values; lower than the superior ones that accompany human maturity. An ideal marriage must be based on something more permanent than the fluctuations of feelings and the vicissitudes of mere sexual attraction; it must be based on sincere and mutual devotion. If, therefore, you learn to form such trustworthy and effective small groups of men, and when they come together, the world will behold a great and glorious social structure, a civilization of human maturity. Such a race would begin to realize something of your Master’s ideals of ‘peace on earth and good will among men.’ While such a society would not be perfect or wholly free from evil, it would at least approximate the stability of maturity”.
P.S. Family on a nearby planet
A chapter of The Urantia Book describes the socio-political and religious aspects of the life of an evolved race in the Satania system already mentioned. In the future, I will summarize this information in more detail, but at this point I consider it justified to quote fragments concerning their family life.
It will not be surprising that this nation treats the family as the basic institution of civilization. Theoretically, this is also the case here, but there this approach seems to be more conscious.
It is recognized that the most valuable part of a child’s education is provided by parents; because they are responsible for shaping their young characters. Not school. All knowledge about sex and reproduction is passed on at home. Just like religious teaching, which the book calls “the privilege of parents”. Faith is a very important issue there, but religion is a family matter — religious organizations like our Catholic Church have not developed; there are not even public places dedicated exclusively to religious gatherings. Family life is gradually improving thanks to the compulsory participation of both parents in classes conducted in parental education schools. Of course, it is not the religious organizations that teach this teaching.
In each family there are on average five children, who are cared for by their parents, or in the case of the death of both of them, but also by one of the parents – which may seem vicious to us – guardians appointed by the court. As you can see, the neighbors understood what The Urantia Book is trying to make us believe: only two parents can ensure the proper development of the youngest. And it is not blood ties that count, but the values that the child will receive from both mother and father. And fathers there have practically the same contribution to raising a child as mothers. The maturity of our cosmic brothers can also be seen through the prism of adoption. The diminution of the selfish power of biological origin makes it an honor for any family to be granted custody of an orphan. In our country, it is a consequence of parental desperation, when the society, under the guise of admiration and gratitude, mainly sympathizes with the lost fight against infertility. In order to better illustrate how seriously the welfare of children is treated there, I will mention that families fight among themselves for granting the right to adopt. Competitions are organized, and the orphan goes to those who have demonstrated the best parental qualifications. Taking a child away from single parents seems inhumane, right. It’s hard for me to imagine what feelings could be associated with it, but it also makes it easier for me to look at it coolly. So I ask myself, ‘Which is more important—the child’s healthy character or the selfish feeling that he is mine?’ I doubt that the biological parent is completely cut off in this process. I am also convinced that such procedures were not introduced suddenly and by force, where terrified children are brutally snatched from the hands of crying mothers; as many of us probably imagine. We must remember that these people are much more mature than we are.
Children up to the age of fifteen remain under the full care of their parents, after which their first introduction to civic duty takes place. Then, every five years, a person takes up new social, civic and state duties five more times. At the same time, his obligations to his parents are decreasing.
Marriage is not permitted until the age of twenty-five; twenty-year-olds may marry only with parental consent. In both cases, the marriage permit is granted only after a one-year period of engagement, prior notification of such an intention and presentation of a certificate of completion of education in parent schools. Such a law, both due to the top-down minimum age entitling to marriage and the obligatory waiting year (let me remind you that a year lasts much longer there than on Earth), significantly reduces the number of divorces. Children must leave the family home when they turn thirty.
Families are provided with self-reliance and independence, because it is illegal for two families to live under the same roof. There are practically no rent-type buildings there anymore (they have been demolished), although the unmarried still live in various types of collective residences. All land and property used for housing purposes is tax-free (unless the plot for the house exceeds the minimum size of four and a half thousand square meters by ten times).
Neighbors are a step or two ahead of us; not just when you look at their family life. You can quickly see that there is still a long way to go. The purpose of the papers summarized above was certainly not to criticize our development or conduct; I also did not notice anything that could indicate that we should blindly imitate our neighbors. Subjectively, however, I would simply call a significant part of the rules in force there wise. I see here rather an indication of inspiration. And because they have gone through an equally difficult and similar path to ours, also a kind of light at the end of the tunnel – no matter how bad it may be, if we put our effort into it, it will only get better.
PPS They are already carrying her a dress with a veil
Magic, ritual, and ceremony surrounded the entire life of the ancients, and marriage was no exception. As civilization advanced, as marriage became more seriously regarded, the wedding ceremony became increasingly pretentious. Early marriage was a factor in property interests, even as it is today and therefore required a legal ceremony, while the social status of subsequent children demanded the widest possible publicity. Primitive man had no records; therefore must the marriage ceremony be witnessed by many persons.
83:4.2 (924.5)
When marriage was a group business, the ceremony was a group business. The ceremony could seal the peace of the conflicting tribes or confirm internal family interests. The first vows were rather engagements (the aforementioned trial marriage) and consisted in publicly announcing the intention to live together. Only later did official communal meals appear; sometimes they consisted only of exchanging gifts. However, they boiled down primarily to slapping a deal. It is here that we find the beginnings of wedding traditions, so sublime today.
The development of civilization, and the consequent growing role of the family in society, in time so affected fathers that they no longer wanted to look like daughter traders; however, they were still willing to accept payment for them. That is why the custom of giving the bride and groom valuable, material gifts (I will talk about the intangible ones in a moment…) appeared — the same fee, although, nomen omen, more nicely wrapped.
When man stopped buying wives, these gifts became her dowry. The idea of a dowry was supposed to give the impression of independence of the bride, but in reality it was an ordinary marriage pledge. In the event of divorce, the husband was obliged to return such a dowry in full. When the parents of both young people paid for the dowry, it was compensation for the abandoned spouse, regardless of gender. The children, as they were part of the estate, belonged either to the father — when he paid for his wife, or to the wife’s family — when she was not bought.
Many tribes allowed members of the group to have sexual relations with the bride before she was given to her husband. This is where the custom of giving wedding gifts originally comes from… Each of the men could give the girl a gift. Some groups required the bride to earn the dowry on her own, which also boiled down to providing sexual services.
Let’s remember that the old marriage did not limit the man’s sexual freedom too much. Especially since unmarried women were granted the same degree of sexual freedom. However, fidelity was required of wives. They usually wore some symbol that indicated their marital status (e.g. hairstyle, clothes, or ornaments – a wedding ring); sometimes they had to stay in seclusion.
The custom of teasing the young couple also comes from the old days; it resulted from the fear of ghosts and they were very jealous. However, they were not very bright, so they could be deceived by seeing unhappy newlyweds who were being made difficult by the group. The veil was to mask the bride in such a way that evil spirits could not recognize her and at the same time, he hid her beauty from those jealous.