How We View Marriage

[JLHPROF]

In light of the other thread asking whether the Church should stop performing legal marriage I thought I'd take this poll.  What does everyone think, and if you don't like the options, please comment to the thread.

[mfbukowski]

The temple recommend requires that one be lawfully wedded before sex.

 

So if they only did sealings without them being legal, there could be no sex.

 

Let's just say it's an unlikely scenario and leave it at that. 

 

The only possible scenario that makes sense is to require civil marriage before sealing.

Edited March 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

The temple recommend requires that one be lawfully wedded before sex.

 

So if they only did sealings without them being legal, there could be no sex.

 

Let's just say it's an unlikely scenario and leave it at that.

 

Oh come on.  If we don't want to look at it speculatively for the future, then look at it historically.  All those polygamist wives without marriage licenses for the first 60+ years of the church.  If it were you would you feel as "married" as the legal spouse?  How much does the civil part of marriage mean to us is all I'm really polling.

[mfbukowski]

It's just a piece of paper. It's a tax return.  Why would anyone care?

[wenglund]

Oh come on.  If we don't want to look at it speculatively for the future, then look at it historically.  All those polygamist wives without marriage licenses for the first 60+ years of the church.  If it were you would you feel as "married" as the legal spouse?  How much does the civil part of marriage mean to us is all I'm really polling.

 

It may be of interest to note that licensing of marriages in the U.S. by the government first occurred in 1887, in compliance with the Edmund Tucker Act, and only applied at that time to Territories then under federal jurisdiction, and was instituted to prevent polygamy. (See HERE) Prior to that time, state and federal marital laws were restricted to divorce and age of children. (ibid.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

It may be of interest to note that licensing of marriages in the U.S. by the government first occurred in 1887, in compliance with the Edmund Tucker Act, and only applied at that time to Territories then under federal jurisdiction, and was instituted to prevent polygamy. (See HERE) Prior to that time, state and federal marital laws were restricted to divorce and age of children. (ibid.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

That's very interesting.  So the marriage licenses we now revere as necessary (legal & lawful) were instituted in the U.S. using a law designed to fight against the Church.  How times have changed.

[Rob Osborn]

I find it interesting that in the eyes of the Lord and the commandments that one can have either a legal marriage outside of the priesthood or a legal marriage within the priesthood and not be considered committing adultery.

[Bikeemikey]

I find it interesting that in the eyes of the Lord and the commandments that one can have either a legal marriage outside of the priesthood or a legal marriage within the priesthood and not be considered committing adultery.

Can you expand on why that is interesting.

[Rob Osborn]

Can you expand on why that is interesting.

Only a priethood marriage is recognized eternally by God but he has allowed man to be legally married and be safe within the commandmenst by getting a non-priesthood marriage.

[Bikeemikey]

Only a priethood marriage is recognized eternally by God but he has allowed man to be legally married and be safe within the commandmenst by getting a non-priesthood marriage.

But that seems pretty reasonable. Why would good condemn a committed relationship because there is no priesthood around, or because the person does not believe in the priesthood?

[Rob Osborn]

But that seems pretty reasonable. Why would good condemn a committed relationship because there is no priesthood around, or because the person does not believe in the priesthood?

I just find it interesting, thats all.

[Bikeemikey]

I just find it interesting, thats all.

Fair enough.

Question... If a society considers a relationship legally binding when the couple move in together what would the church policy be?

[JLHPROF]

Fair enough.

Question... If a society considers a relationship legally binding when the couple move in together what would the church policy be?

 

 

If a couple is legally married when they move in together I believe the Church accepts it as no sin.

 

But, that question has come up with legally polygamist societies (such as some muslims).  If I recall, the church no longer allows them to be sealed polygamously, even if it is legal in their country.  (If I am wrong, please correct me).  And, well, we know the current policy if those two legally bound people are of the same gender.

I am not sure what other kinds legally binding relationships would cause the Church to have a different policy.

[Ahab]

Technically, marriage is the joining of 2 to become 1, such as when a man and woman become 1 through sexual relations with each other. Their bodies are literally joined together as 1 during that act.

What most people in this world think of as marriage, however, is the sanctioning of a relationship which involves marriage, and the sanctioning is simply the approval of a person, or a group of people, who are simply condoning that marriage. Not that it wouldn't happen without that approval, but for some people that approval is considered to be important, for whatever reasons.

In the Church we usually want the approval of our Lord to sanction our marriage because we realize that without his approval our relationship involving marriage will end when death parts us from our sex partner, and in the USA we usually want the approval of its government officials which gives us some particular benefits while we live in this world.

Ideally I'd like the benefits in both worlds, but if I had to give up the benefits in one world I would choose [to have] the benefits I'll get in the next world, with my Lord's approval.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Ahab

[Bikeemikey]

If a couple is legally married when they move in together I believe the Church accepts it as no sin.

 

But, that question has come up with legally polygamist societies (such as some muslims).  If I recall, the church no longer allows them to be sealed polygamously, even if it is legal in their country.  (If I am wrong, please correct me).  And, well, we know the current policy if those two legally bound people are of the same gender.

I am not sure what other kinds legally binding relationships would cause the Church to have a different policy.

 

My understanding is the church will not even baptize those living in State legal polygamous marriages.

[mercyngrace]

Q1: That ship has sailed but if I were to go back, under new policies, I would separate the civil and temple services for the sake of my in-laws. I'd want to have a civil service so they could participate.

 

Q2: People have been "married" over the course of human history without the benefit of civil acknowledgement. I don't see any civil law as the highest authority on this matter. 

 

Q3: Those people I mentioned in response to Q2, even the ones married only by "common law", can be sealed in the temple. That tells me civil law isn't the determining factor in eternal relationships. For that matter, people sealed in the temple may opt not to be bound by the ordinance. That tells me priesthood authority isn't the determining factor either. I believe that, in te final analysis, our adherence to the covenant (whether is was spoken over an altar or written in the fleshy tables of the heart) is what brings about sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise. 

[Rob Osborn]

Fair enough.

Question... If a society considers a relationship legally binding when the couple move in together what would the church policy be?

If there was no ceremony, no papers, etc (typical marriage etiquette) then the church would probably not see them as being married.

[Stargazer]

The temple recommend requires that one be lawfully wedded before sex.

 

So if they only did sealings without them being legal, there could be no sex.

 

Let's just say it's an unlikely scenario and leave it at that. 

 

The only possible scenario that makes sense is to require civil marriage before sealing.

This lawfully wedded thing... it is non-scriptural, and there is no revelatory warrant for it. Show me Adam and Eve's marriage license. Not only would it have decayed to dust by now, there wasn't one. It was always considered adequate for God having said "I pronounce you man and wife."

Ultimately, "a license may be issued by authorities, to allow an activity that would otherwise be forbidden." Or in the case of a marriage license (from Wikipedia):

 

A marriage license (American English) or marriage licence (British English) is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).

I have read opinions by some scholars that the marriage license in the US became particularly important in order to help enforce miscegenation laws. An interesting case occurred in 2009 when a judge refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, in Louisiana.

To marry is, in my opinion, a right that is not subject to state intervention, other than through common law, which would hold marriages such as between persons too closely related (mother/son, brother/sister, etc) as unlawful. And between same sex persons.

There is also the distinction between legal and lawful. Many people think the words mean the same thing, but they do not. "Lawful" in English/American jurisprudence refers to the Common Law (the customary law not dependent upon legislative statutes, which is considered to a part of the land), whereas "legal" refers to statutory law or law created by a legislature.

This is why statutes granting the privilege for same sex couples to wed is so important to the LGBT community. The common law, or law of the land, cannot be bent towards this -- it is grounded in tradition. But the legislature (or judges, apparently) can get around it by permitting (licensing) individuals of the same sex to marry.

[Bikeemikey]

If there was no ceremony, no papers, etc (typical marriage etiquette) then the church would probably not see them as being married.

The requirement is legally and lawfully married (I wonder by the way is this wording is an artifact of conflict between church and govt over polygamy).

If the govt considers any couple cohabiting as legally and lawfully married what would the church position be.

Moreover, how about common law marriages. In New Zealand if you live with someone for a couple of years (can't remember the exact time frame) you are treated identically by the state as a married person by the law. It is a common law marriage.

They are legally and lawfully common law married. Does that count?

[strappinglad]

Well, the couple could just " jump the broom " and it would be lawful in some societies. Where there is no formal legal requirement I can see the church just marrying the couple before sealing them like they do now.

[Rob Osborn]

The requirement is legally and lawfully married (I wonder by the way is this wording is an artifact of conflict between church and govt over polygamy).

If the govt considers any couple cohabiting as legally and lawfully married what would the church position be.

Moreover, how about common law marriages. In New Zealand if you live with someone for a couple of years (can't remember the exact time frame) you are treated identically by the state as a married person by the law. It is a common law marriage.

They are legally and lawfully common law married. Does that count?

No, as far as I know the church does not view any type of cohabitation as marriage. I have kniwn several couples who lived with each other for many years, had kids together, etc, and then wanted to join the church. They were then required to become married before their baptims date.

[Bikeemikey]

No, as far as I know the church does not view any type of cohabitation as marriage. I have kniwn several couples who lived with each other for many years, had kids together, etc, and then wanted to join the church. They were then required to become married before their baptims date.

But legally and lawfully married is not sufficient. If you are legally and lawfully in a polygamous marriage you still can not be baptized, presumably that's a law of chastity thing.

[jaxenro]

If I remember correctly licenses also came about when blood tests were administered prior to marriage to screen for some types of disease if you had them you weren't allowe to marry

Since marriage is no longer for procreation I suppose it doesn't matter anymore

[Bikeemikey]

If I remember correctly licenses also came about when blood tests were administered prior to marriage to screen for some types of disease if you had them you weren't allowe to marry

Since marriage is no longer for procreation I suppose it doesn't matter anymore

Hadn't heard that before - was that in the USA?

[jaxenro]

Think so - might have been scarlet fever or something that impacted. Childbirth if the mother had it as a child