USU78 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: I don't think that matters. I've done temple sealings for some of my own ancestors for whom we had no evidence of legal marriage -- and some of them might not even have gone through the formality. Who can tell? My great great grandparents Alfred Burr Clark (a Vermonter who came to California for the Gold Rush) and Yo-e-ma (a full-blood California Indian) were by family tradition married three times. Once by tribal ceremony, once by local justice-of-the-peace, and once by a Christian ceremony. The first one was OK with the tribe, but not the whites, the second was OK with the tribe but not all the whites, and the third apparently got grudging acceptance by all. We have no record of any of these ceremonies, and for all I know the ceremonies were never carried out -- at least the "white" ones. Were they legally married? Who the heck knows? There is no doubt they spent their lives together, and had seven children, all of whom lived to adulthood. You have to be aware that marriage has not always involved the same legal-beagle horse manure our Western tradition has mandated for the last millenium or so. We talk about "legally and lawfully", but what does that mean, ultimately? The particular tradition of my Indian ancestors did not involve paperwork (no paper, and no officials to grant permission, either). The prospective groom came to the prospective bride's parents and basically moved in with them, did chores, helped out hunting and gathering, until they agreed that he was sufficiently provident for their daughter. They then gave him permission to take her as his wife, and from then on they just started procreating. No marriage ceremony; they were just acknowledged as being together. Sounds like my Danish ancestors. Common Law was pretty common.
jpv Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 On 6/13/2018 at 3:08 PM, cinepro said: It would be cool if the system also automatically removed any ordinance info for people in same-sex marriages. That would save someone the trouble of doing it manually later. No, just children of.
jpv Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 On 6/14/2018 at 4:01 PM, cinepro said: Those marriages would have been illegal, and thus null and void. This has never been the Mormon interpretation and is a very anachronistic point of view.
cinepro Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 On 6/15/2018 at 8:40 PM, jpv said: This has never been the Mormon interpretation and is a very anachronistic point of view. I was obviously referring to the normal person interpretation. I agree that LDS didn't have a problem with Joseph performing secret illegal polygamous marriages. Except for Emma, William McLellan, and all the other people who have left the Church over the issue in the last 180 years. 3
jpv Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 8 hours ago, cinepro said: I was obviously referring to the normal person interpretation. I agree that LDS didn't have a problem with Joseph performing secret illegal polygamous marriages. Except for Emma, William McLellan, and all the other people who have left the Church over the issue in the last 180 years. I mean the perspective that for a marriage to be legitimate in the eyes of God, it must be sanctioned by the state. This is a very presentist and Western POV.
cinepro Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 17 hours ago, jpv said: I mean the perspective that for a marriage to be legitimate in the eyes of God, it must be sanctioned by the state. This is a very presentist and Western POV. If you're saying that Mormonism is exceedingly "presentist" and "Western", I'd have to agree with you. 1
blueglass Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) deleted Edited June 18, 2018 by blueglass confusing 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 20 minutes ago, blueglass said: Marriage commandments ignored by Joseph smith: No marrying sisters: Leviticus 18:18 “While your wife is living, never marry her sister as a rival wife and have sexual intercourse with her.” – yet Joseph married three sets of sisters, Zina&Presendia, Sarah&Maria Lawrence, and Emily&Eliza Partridge. No polyandry: Romans 7:3 “So if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she will be called an adulterer.” – yet Joseph married Harris, Jacobs, Buell, Lyon, Lightner, Sessions, Hyde, Durfee, Cleveland, Sayers, and Holmes while they were simultaneously married to another man. No marrying mother/daughter: Leviticus 20:14 “When a man marries a woman and her mother, they have done a perverted thing. The man and the two women must be burned. Never do this perverted thing.” – yet Joseph married both Sylvia sessions Lyon and her mother Patty. No marrying virgins without your wife’s consent: D&Cov 132:61 – "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified", yet documentary evidence only exists for Emma's approval of 4 of the 34 marriages, and 11 had already vowed to other men through marriage. What was the higher law of marriage that Joseph adhered to that made all of these commandments irrelevant that he was willing to obey - even if it meant bringing his marriage with Emma to the brink of divorce? How do we update the FamilySearch.org software to support all of these exotic marriages? Since whatever God commands is right, and since I believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God who received and obeyed divine revelation, your cherry picking of Bible verses and weaponizing your interpretation of them does not impress me in the least.
blueglass Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since whatever God commands is right, and since I believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God who received and obeyed divine revelation, your cherry picking of Bible verses and weaponizing your interpretation of them does not impress me in the least. i wasn't trying to weaponize. will delete comment Edited June 18, 2018 by blueglass
Recommended Posts