Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Brian 2.0

"Legally & Lawfully" Married

72 posts in this topic

I know these are theoretical questions but practically it would be up to the bishop/stake president to decide if these constituted "legally and lawfully wedded"

The decision would not involve "The Church" any more than any other temple recommend interview would. The bishop is a "common judge in Israel" and accepts the responsibility of standing before God someday to answer for his decisions.

As a practical consideration in such cases, the bishop might ask the couple to get a marriage license and then marry them in his office- or if required to get married quietly in a civil ceremony if the law required it.

Abstract speculation is fun, but often it is just that- abstract, impractical and speculation.

Hence the reason I asked the question: any one know of a scenario where there has been leeway granted?

At the moment no one does know of any examples where the bishop said either I consider you married (even though your legally not) or let's get you sealed even though you can't be legally married.

I'm surprised that given the global scope of the church and the increased presence in less developed nations there are not any examples of this local autonomy Bishops have.

Edited by Bikeemikey
0

Share this post


Link to post
Urban Legend or no. This scenario could easily happen and I think all agree that that couple would receive some church disciple for violating the Law of Chastity. The example still serves is purpose for this discussion.

I love Freudian Slips! Which church disciple would that be? :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hence the reason I asked the question: any one know of a scenario where there has been leeway granted?

At the moment no one does know of any examples where the bishop said either I consider you married (even though your legally not) or let's get you sealed even though you can't be legally married.

I'm surprised that given the global scope of the church and the increased presence in less developed nations there are not any examples of this local autonomy Bishops have.

With all due respect, we have an epistemological problem here.

How could we possibly know what is happening confidentially in bishop's offices across the world, which never leaves the office?

Is there some message board where bishop's decisions are written up for all the world to see?

Trust me- as a former bishop there are all kinds of decisions I made which I hold within me unknown to anyone but me and the person I was counseling- and the Lord, some far more serious than your examples.

Did I get every one "right"? I will know some day.

2

Share this post


Link to post

With all due respect, we have an epistemological problem here.

How could we possibly know what is happening confidentially in bishop's offices across the world, which never leaves the office?

Is there some message board where bishop's decisions are written up for all the world to see?

Trust me- as a former bishop there are all kinds of decisions I made which I hold within me unknown to anyone but me and the person I was counseling- and the Lord, some far more serious than your examples.

Did I get every one "right"? I will know some day.

Oh I fully agree. Both to the observation regarding the epistemic issue and the role of bishops.

One of The greatest strength of our religion is the massive autonomy of local bishops. I support it and endorse it. I believe it to be the keystone where the gospel balances the institution with out the institutional pressure to confirm overwhelming the revelatory nature of our religious experience.

I just surprised something hasn't leaked. I thought for sure there would at least be a mormon myth on it.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I love Freudian Slips! Which church disciple would that be? :rolleyes:

My money would be on Richard G. Scott. He wouldn't say anything to them. Just look right at them and they'd get it. :)

Edited by Brian 2.0
0

Share this post


Link to post

http://en.m.wikipedi...i/Honor_killing

Honor killings are heavily skewed towards female victims.

Have they always been that way? I am wondering if during biblical times this was so...of course it is much easier to determine if a woman has been fornicating at times than a man unless caught in the act due to pregnancy as well as the apparent lack of virginal blood (which is an unfortunate test of chastity due to the possibility of the hymen being broken by strong physical activity such as riding) so I would not be surprised, but there were a number of nonsexual stoning offenses that might lean more towards male behaviour than female, IIRC.
0

Share this post


Link to post

I fail to see how that is an answer to the questions posed.

I can only assume you are considering temple sealings as part of the response: there are absolutely no covenants secrecy around the temple sealing, only the endowment.

That is what I am talking about. IMNSHO you are coming talking endowment content.

0

Share this post


Link to post

With all due respect, we have an epistemological problem here.

How could we possibly know what is happening confidentially in bishop's offices across the world, which never leaves the office?

Is there some message board where bishop's decisions are written up for all the world to see?

Trust me- as a former bishop there are all kinds of decisions I made which I hold within me unknown to anyone but me and the person I was counseling- and the Lord, some far more serious than your examples.

Did I get every one "right"? I will know some day.

I am convinced that you probably made very few decisions that need give you any discomfort.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Nice - hope you happen to be stranded with a super-model in this post-apocalyptic world.

As a side note: didn't lots daughters sleep or try to sleep with him when they thought he was the only man left alive?

What did The Lord think of that?

They knew he wasn't the last man left, they could see a city from the cave. And they had to have known of Abraham from their father. They just used an excuse to engage in perversion they learned about in S&G.

He didn't like it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

That is what I am talking about. IMNSHO you are coming talking endowment content.

I understand that phrasing is used in the temple as well, but as posted before, here's it from the handbook:

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Yes, the law of chastity is in the endowment, but it's in a TON of other places. And the phrases "legally and lawfully" in terms of marraige is hardly a Mormon phrase. It's all over the place.

0

Share this post


Link to post

They knew he wasn't the last man left, they could see a city from the cave. And they had to have known of Abraham from their father. They just used an excuse to engage in perversion they learned about in S&G.

He didn't like it.

Assuming the account is historical, perhaps their motivation was that because they were homeless, they saw themselves as ineligible for marriage...at least of any significant status....both themselves and their father---their father had no one to carry on his name/line and instead resorted to such to create a new clan of which their children would be the leaders.

Or perhaps they didn't think their father would survive the journey to Abraham's location (since he was nomadic, they may not have known where he was) or perhaps they felt at the city they would be force to seek refuge at, they would be seen as slaves. If they had children, they could pretend to be widows.

Perhaps they did not want to return to Abraham as nonstatus females of a nonexistent family to be put aside if their father were to marry a new wife that bore him sons.

Bottomline is that so few details are given in the story, one could create a hundred or more reasons----some noble, some despicable, some reasonable, some irrational----if one cares to. Thus it is better, in my view, to refrain from judgment.

0

Share this post


Link to post

They knew he wasn't the last man left, they could see a city from the cave. And they had to have known of Abraham from their father. They just used an excuse to engage in perversion they learned about in S&G..

Rather harsh, considering:

1. they were apparently among the few S&G residents who didn’t engage in perversions.

2. they probably were suffering extreme psychological trauma at the time; hence were probably not thinking very rationally. That sort of thing tends to happen when your city is completely destroyed and you are one of only three survivors. Also, I presume that having one’s mother turned into a pillar of salt probably doesn’t do much for one’s mental health.

1

Share this post


Link to post

That is what I am talking about. IMNSHO you are coming talking endowment content.

??

0

Share this post


Link to post

The story of Lot and his daughters has always seemed a bit strange. The effects of excessive alcohol are well documented and they include putting one to sleep All Over ! Also , the daughters were either extremely fertile or they lied that it was a one time event. I tend toward the idea that this story was more metaphor than history.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are even scenarios where "legally and lawfully" gets in the way of truly keeping the law.

- Couples from BYU that have quickly gone down to Las Vegas to be legally and lawfully married, only to have sex and then annul the marriage are considered in breach of the Law of Chastity

- Joseph Smith and early church polygamy involved marriages that were NOT "legal and lawful" according to state laws but members would not say those relations were in violation of the Law of Chastity.

"Legally and lawfully" seems to be policy rather than principle. There seems to be some underlying principle that governs it beyond the laws of the land.

Yes. In these scenarios, “The Lord can judge a couple's good-faith efforts to honor the light they have been given,” typically through His servants, even in the administration of Church policy.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So two people that legally married in a country that did not have legal divorce then separated from their first spouse (lets say for legitimate reasons like serious spousal abuse) and then found each other a year later would be abiding the law of chastity by entering into a long term sexual relationship together despite the inability to be legally and lawfully marriage.

If that is all the light they have, who am I to judge?

Can any share a known example where the church has allowed this sort of relationship to be permissible?

Can anyone share an example where a couple was allowed to be sealed in the temple but where no legally marriage certificate was ever granted by the state?

Where "I think God expects people to get along in a larger community, and even sacrifice for the stabilitiy of the larger community," such an example would be hard to find in this day and age and if they truly want an eternal marriage, they will happily await their opportunity. Beleive me, people have sacrificed and suffered more than this.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If that is all the light they have, who am I to judge?

Where "I think God expects people to get along in a larger community, and even sacrifice for the stabilitiy of the larger community," such an example would be hard to find in this day and age and if they truly want an eternal marriage, they will happily await their opportunity. Beleive me, people have sacrificed and suffered more than this.

People have sacrificed more than the opportunity to procreate because the govt wouldn't give them a piece of paper?

You do realize that in the bible Abraham was told to have sex with his wife's handmaiden in order to have a baby!

The law of chastity seems to be go right out the window in favor of baby making pretty quick.

0

Share this post


Link to post

People have sacrificed more than the opportunity to procreate because the govt wouldn't give them a piece of paper?

Yes, the arguments abound either way, but ultimately they become political. If I’m not mistaken, the scenario you brought up applies only to the Vatican and the Philippines. The Church has a temple in the Philippines and has chosen to abide by the law of that land.

And yes, of course couples have sacrificed more than the opportunity to procreate (their lives, their actual children, etc.) because the government wouldn't give them a piece of paper—what is your point? My goodness, history and current events are full of that!

My point is that while it is tragic that people have to wait to fulfill their fondest and most righteous desires, they will be fulfilled in due time.

You do realize that in the bible Abraham was told to have sex with his wife's handmaiden in order to have a baby!

(in my best D ick Martin impersonation): I didn't know that!

Abraham did what Abraham did –what is your point? My point is that in his case, he was living both the law of chastity and the “legal and lawful” marriage arrangements permissible within his culture.

The law of chastity seems to be go right out the window in favor of baby making pretty quick.

The law of chastity is all about baby-making—what is your point? My point is that the Lord has a preferred means of doing that, and that is the law of chastity, which has been discussed at length in another thread recently that I will refer you to.

Edited by CV75
0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I shouldn't have use the Swiss Family Zombie Apocalypse scenario, though i love what has come out of it, it is slightly off point... The better examples are the BYU->Vegas quick wedding (legal and lawful but against the Law of Chastity) and Early Polygamy (NOT legal and lawful but acceptable under the law of chastity).

The other interesting question is the "we're married. we did a ceremony, we declared it to the world, but we're keeping the government out of our marriage." That's definitely not legal and lawful, and I wonder how the church would handle that scenario. I don't know if anyone knows because I'm not sure we've had to deal with that.

Either way... it does seem like they care less about "legal and lawful" and more about something else. Commitment? I dont' know? That's what I'm asking.

I agree that the Vegas 1-day marriage serves a good case study for the conversation.

Clearly the church is not interested in "legal" marriage. They are interested in their own definition of marriages. As you state, they don't recognise legal marriages (gay or '1-day in Vegas') and they did recognise illegal marriages (1800s polygamy).

Interesting. What happened to "subject to kings, magistrates, respecting the law of the land."

0

Share this post


Link to post

Nice - hope you happen to be stranded with a super-model in this post-apocalyptic world.

As a side note: didn't lots daughters sleep or try to sleep with him when they thought he was the only man left alive?

What did The Lord think of that?

Just to clarify, Lot's daughters did not think that he was the only man left alive. They did what they did because Lot had no male descendant to carry on his name.

The Joseph Smith Clarification of the King James version of the Bible tells us that what Lot's daughters did, they "did wickedly".

Glenn

0

Share this post


Link to post

Were the daughters acts sin? Did they violate the principles of chastity, or is chastity at least partially practical?

How about lot when he offered his daughters to the men to have their way with them...

Again, if one reads the JST account, Lot did not offer his daughters to the men outside his house to do as they wished with them.

Genesis 19:13 of the JST states:

"And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes"

Quite a different picture of Lot arises from the JST.

Glenn

0

Share this post


Link to post

The church is less interested in marriages that are legal/lawful and more interested in a marriage of their own definition. They define marriage as between a man and a woman. I would suggest your Swiss Family Zombie Apocalypse scenario would allow you to hold hands, and make a a commitment before God. As new president and first lady of the world (or your island) you could make a new "law" that coconut trees can act as vicars. Sorted!

The "Church" is interested in what God wants and what He deems to be "lawful". I think that one poster has already broached the idea that "legal" is referring to U.S. federal and state laws, and the "lawful" is referring to God's laws.

Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, or maybe women. It is not the "Church" which is trying to come up with a new definition of marriage.

On the only man and woman in the land scenario, Adam and Eve were in that category. God performed the ceremony for them. I expect that such would be the case for a righteous man and woman left as the only people on the earth.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bernard Gui
      What was the commandment the Lamanites kept that brought them this promise?
      They kept the law of chastity and as result God promised to remember them and brought them out of darkness or will make them a blessed people.
      What are the Implications of this for us today? Just how important is the law of chastity? As our society moves deeper into rejecting the law, how serious is this rejection? What will be the consequences of this rejection? Is the current normalization of immoral behavior putting us at risk? If so, how will that be manifested? At what point does acceptance of immoral behavior put us at risk? What can result from this? What can be done to change the rush into immorality in the name of tolerance and acceptance? Is it past the hope of renewal? How would renewal take place?
      .