"Legally & Lawfully" Married

[Brian 2.0]

I actually do NOT want this to be another SSA thread, though I do see how there could be some crossover.

The Law of Chastity sanctions sexual relations between an man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. How important is the "legally and lawfully" part of it?

Are they not times, especially anciently, where marraiges weren't "legally" sanctioned?

If World War Z happened and the world was turned into zombies with the lone exception of me and another woman. If we went to a desert island and starting having children to repopulate the Earth, would we be in violation of the Law of Chastity since we are not legally married?

Is it just that "IF" the opporunity to be legally married exists that you need to be legally married to not be in violation of the Law of Chastity, but if the opportunity does NOT exist to be legally married then it's something else?

[thesometimesaint]

I actually do NOT want this to be another SSA thread, though I do see how there could be some crossover.

The Law of Chastity sanctions sexual relations between an man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. How important is the "legally and lawfully" part of it?

Are they not times, especially anciently, where marraiges weren't "legally" sanctioned?

If World War Z happened and the world was turned into zombies with the lone exception of me and another woman. If we went to a desert island and starting having children to repopulate the Earth, would we be in violation of the Law of Chastity since we are not legally married?

Is it just that "IF" the opporunity to be legally married exists that you need to be legally married to not be in violation of the Law of Chastity, but if the opportunity does NOT exist to be legally married then it's something else?

Legally and lawfully means as granted by the State. The Law of Chasity is a religious concept and as such State enforcement becomes problematic.

[CV75]

I actually do NOT want this to be another SSA thread, though I do see how there could be some crossover.

The Law of Chastity sanctions sexual relations between an man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. How important is the "legally and lawfully" part of it?

Are they not times, especially anciently, where marraiges weren't "legally" sanctioned?

If World War Z happened and the world was turned into zombies with the lone exception of me and another woman. If we went to a desert island and starting having children to repopulate the Earth, would we be in violation of the Law of Chastity since we are not legally married?

Is it just that "IF" the opporunity to be legally married exists that you need to be legally married to not be in violation of the Law of Chastity, but if the opportunity does NOT exist to be legally married then it's something else?

I think that "legally and lawfully" has to do with the mores of the society the couple lives in and might differ from group to group depending on the light they've been given. The Lord can judge a couple's good-faith efforts to honor the light they have been given, including improving or repenting as new approaches are given to them. I think God expects people to get along in a larger community, and even sacrifice for the stabilitiy of the larger community, and this phrase allows that no individual or marriage ever really operates in a vacuum.

In the scenario you offered, where the couple is in a vaccum, I would say the legality and lawfulness of the marriage would be justified by whatever covenant they make between them in good faith and rationale according the light they are given.

Couples that cannot be "legally and lawfully" married and also want to abide by the Law of Chastity would not get married and not break the Law of Chastity.

[strappinglad]

Most countries today at least pay lip service to the idea of a nation ruled by laws. Where national laws exist a couple must be married in accordance with said laws. Where such laws do not exist, there will probably be some tribal or religious law that holds sway and that law must be abided by. The desert island scenario could be legal and lawful in that the remaining couple has not other law to deal with so they will be creating the new set of laws themselves.

[Bikeemikey]

Legally and lawfully means as granted by the State. The Law of Chasity is a religious concept and as such State enforcement becomes problematic.

Polygamous marriages were not legally and lawfully procured... Were all such participants violators of the law of chastity.

[Brian 2.0]

I think that "legally and lawfully" has to do with the mores of the society the couple lives in and might differ from group to group depending on the light they've been given. The Lord can judge a couple's good-faith efforts to honor the light they have been given, including improving or repenting as new approaches are given to them. I think God expects people to get along in a larger community, and even sacrifice for the stabilitiy of the larger community, and this phrase allows that no individual or marriage ever really operates in a vacuum.

In the scenario you offered, where the couple is in a vaccum, I would say the legality and lawfulness of the marriage would be justified by whatever covenant they make between them in good faith and rationale according the light they are given.

Couples that cannot be "legally and lawfully" married and also want to abide by the Law of Chastity would not get married and not break the Law of Chastity.

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.

[thesometimesaint]

Polygamous marriages were not legally and lawfully procured... Were all such participants violators of the law of chastity.

There is a difference between Sealings and marriages.

The practice of polygamous marriage wasn't announced until Brother Brigham was out of the country.

[Bikeemikey]

Couples that cannot be "legally and lawfully" married and also want to abide by the Law of Chastity would not get married and not break the Law of Chastity.

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.

That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

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?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[awyatt]

From the CHI:

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.

—CHI, Book 2, 21.4.5

[Brian 2.0]

From the CHI:

—CHI, Book 2, 21.4.5

That doesn't really help us here. A strict application of that quote from the handbook makes the weekend Las Vegas marriage seem in keeping with the law of chastity and early church polygamy in violation of it.

[mfbukowski]

I actually do NOT want this to be another SSA thread, though I do see how there could be some crossover.

The Law of Chastity sanctions sexual relations between an man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. How important is the "legally and lawfully" part of it?

Are they not times, especially anciently, where marraiges weren't "legally" sanctioned?

If World War Z happened and the world was turned into zombies with the lone exception of me and another woman. If we went to a desert island and starting having children to repopulate the Earth, would we be in violation of the Law of Chastity since we are not legally married?

Is it just that "IF" the opporunity to be legally married exists that you need to be legally married to not be in violation of the Law of Chastity, but if the opportunity does NOT exist to be legally married then it's something else?

If you are the only two people on earth- and a Melchizadek priesthood holder- guess what?

You are both the prophet and the supreme law of the land.

Pray about it and do what you like.

[ERayR]

If you are the only two people on earth- and a Melchizadek priesthood holder- guess what?

You are both the prophet and the supreme law of the land.

Pray about it and do what you like.

It does seem that many love to wrestle with words in order to muddy the waters.

[Bikeemikey]

If you are the only two people on earth- and a Melchizadek priesthood holder- guess what?

You are both the prophet and the supreme law of the land.

Pray about it and do what you like.

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?

[Brian 2.0]

It does seem that many love to wrestle with words in order to muddy the waters.

And others like to come in and accuse people of muddying waters and not contribute to a discussion.

[Bikeemikey]

And others like to come in and accuse people of muddying waters and not contribute to a discussion.

is it ok if I like to do both?

[mfbukowski]

What did The Lord think of that?

I guess he forgot to ask for my opinion on that one and didn't even tell me what he thought about it either.

I'll have to have a stern talk with him.

<Looking for a lightning strike any time now stand clear!>

Edited July 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

is it ok if I like to do both?

Yup, just expect somebody to get upset and call you on it. Anyway that is my experience.

[Brian 2.0]

And others like to come in and accuse people of muddying waters and not contribute to a discussion.

To get you up to speed if you want to participate. I have said that the law of chastity indicates that permitted sexual relations is connected to being "legally and lawfully" married. I have posed two scenarios that show perhaps it's connected to something else.

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.

I am asking if there is something else besides "legally and lawfully married" that is actually behind it.

[ERayR]

And others like to come in and accuse people of muddying waters and not contribute to a discussion.

I thought observations were allowed. Am I mistaken?

[mfbukowski]

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

At my age, that would qualify as hell, or at least purgatory. Besides my wife might not approve.

[Brian 2.0]

I thought observations were allowed. Am I mistaken?

It was a quick reply I'll admit. But I'm not trying to muddy waters, so I resented the accusation. I'm saying that the water looks muddy, so what's the deal?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Bikeemikey]

At my age, that would qualify as hell, or at least purgatory. Besides my wife might not approve.

I thought your wife was a Zombie in this scenario :-).

[Brian 2.0]

At my age, that would qualify as hell, or at least purgatory. Besides my wife might not approve.

Perhaps I started this thread as a veiled attempt to understand the island on LOST. Now I know that if I create a purgatory island I'll set you up with a super-model.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

I am asking if there is something else besides "legally and lawfully married" that is actually behind it.

I don't understand what you mean by "behind it".

What is "behind it" is that it is better for society for two people to publicly declare that they are going to stay together for their lifetimes- and that they are sharing in everything they have.

That is called "marriage". It has many advantages to society.

[mfbukowski]

I thought your wife was a Zombie in this scenario :-).

Oh yeah, I forgot.

In that case make it "hell" rather than purgatory.