Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Separation


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Poll: Should LDS give up the lawful marriage ceremony? (Not Sealings) (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Should LDS give up the lawful marriage ceremony? (Not Sealings)

  1. Yes (8 votes [44.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

  2. No (10 votes [55.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.56%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 11:25 AM

Should the Church give up the "lawful marriages" and allow the justices of peace do the "lawful" part and hold just on to the Templemarriage; the sealing? In this way we separate the state from the Church and same sex marriages will be states problem. Why yes, why no??
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#2 UrbanFool

UrbanFool

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 644 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:22 PM

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".

#3 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:25 PM

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".

Happy now??? You know what Dysgrafi is... well I got it. Sorry about the mistakes is all I can say! I am SURE it is not just YOU... but I am sorry I cant help it!!!:( S was from my own language.

Besides in Germany they have always married first at the justice of peace then in the Church. Those who want the lawful rights can marry by the justice and those who want the eternal marriage can marry in the Temple.

Edited by Maya, 09 August 2010 - 12:29 PM.

Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#4 rameumptom

rameumptom

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7195 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:28 PM

Reynolds vs USA is the mainstay right now on government being able to affect marriage laws. The Supreme Court decided that one could not have polygamy, just because it was part of a religious belief. LDS have lived with that Supreme Court injunction for over 120 years. Now we're going to throw that court law away so others can take upon themselves the term "marriage"? If the Supreme Court ends up approving gay marriage throughout the country on Constitutional terms, then probably they'll have to strike down the Reynolds Act.
:pope:

Rameumptom: A Holy Stand or Podium, where I can pontificate to my heart's delight.

rameumptom.weebly.com

#5 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:37 PM

America the land of possibilities? :mellow: Thanks Rem... interesting. Btw WHY do the gays want to call it marriage? Cant the nonreligious marriage be called union? So all the godies from state would go to people in union.... and all the godies from the Church would go to people who have been married! I can not understand why a union word had not been enough for gays? (and legistlators or something). Why do they absolutely have to use the word marriage? :huh:
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#6 UrbanFool

UrbanFool

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 644 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:39 PM

Sorry. I just have a thing for titles and polls. I don't go around correcting everyone's spelling. Here in the states we have to get a marriage license and then we can get married in whatever manner we choose. My husband and I were married by the Justice of the Peace. We didn't have a wedding. I don't understand why polygamy is outlawed. It's not something I would participate in, but if a man financially supports all of his children and everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see the deal.

Edited by UrbanFool, 09 August 2010 - 12:42 PM.


#7 FairChild

FairChild

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 521 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:41 PM

In some countries you are legally married first (civilly) by the state and then you are allowed to have a religious ceremony. It's a thought. FC

#8 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:25 PM

Sorry. I just have a thing for titles and polls. I don't go around correcting everyone's spelling. Here in the states we have to get a marriage license and then we can get married in whatever manner we choose. My husband and I were married by the Justice of the Peace. We didn't have a wedding.

I don't understand why polygamy is outlawed. It's not something I would participate in, but if a man financially supports all of his children and everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see the deal.


It is ok... it irks mee too that I cant spell... THANKS for telling... I like to fix them if someone tells me the mistakes... I am just angry at myself... :huh:

We have the same practice in Finland... but I think it could be changed to the wordly one as a union and the church one as a marriage and all the benefits from state to the union... so no problem. Benefits are the things gays are after anyway... right. Personally I think that it dont matter what gender the one is, who is sitting beside a dying friend... only family allowed is pretty cruel.

In Norway the gays can even adopt children. As an adoptee myself I would say NO to adoptations.
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#9 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:36 PM

There are more saying no than yes... why cant we give up the lawful marriage and just keep our own sealing ceremony, that anyway is more important to us? We dont loose anything by doing that or do we?? Everyone can go to the Justice of peace in the morning and in the Temple in the afternoon... or later if the Temple is far away... I would go to the justice of peace with dirty jeans and to the Church with a wedding dress... If the Temple is far people marry usually civilly first anyway. Some 25 years ago, before the Sewedish Temple, we had to travel to Swizerland for sealings. It would take us 2 days almost. Now both Stockholm and Helsink Temple are allowed to marry people and soon Kiev too. So I cant see it as a catastrophy if civil unions and Church marriages will be separated and the Civil one will be aquired from everyone who wants to have the benefits of the country....
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#10 Wingnut

Wingnut

    A little nutty, with wings

  • Members
  • 10312 posts
  • LocationCleveland, OH

Posted 09 August 2010 - 05:00 PM

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".


Perhaps you could give a little leeway for those who aren't native English speakers.
Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. -- C.S. Lewis

If we're going to be stupid about this, we're going to be stupid on my terms. -- my husband

#11 ADoyle90815

ADoyle90815

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 769 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:18 PM

There are churches who would perform gay marriages if allowed to do so, so in a way, that ban is violating their religious freedom.
YouTube - ‪Gay Marriage = Religious Freedom‬‎!
"He who takes offense when it's not intended is a fool, he who takes offense when it IS intended is a greater fool." Brigham Young
:rainbow:

#12 deseretgov

deseretgov

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 699 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:30 PM

LDS have lived with that Supreme Court injunction for over 120 years.


That's not correct. Authorized Plural Marriages were performed as late as 1907. And many, not a few, were authorized and performed between 1890 and 1907. The Manifesto was not put into full force until Heber J. Grant. For years Plural Marriages were not legalized by the law of the land. Legalization of marriages by the law of the land is irrelevent when it comes to sealings.

EDIT: I guess I should rephrase. Yes it is true we have lived with it. But we have not obeyed it for 120 years.

Then we can also consider Concubinage. In this a man and women make a solemn covenant before God without a ceremony or officiator/priesthood leader. This was considered a lesser type of marriage. Today we would just consider this living together, but at one point it was acceptable as a way around the manifesto.

Edited by deseretgov, 09 August 2010 - 06:57 PM.


#13 UrbanFool

UrbanFool

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 644 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:33 PM

Perhaps you could give a little leeway for those who aren't native English speakers.


I already apologized, and I didn't know she was not a native English speaker. But there were two big fat errors in one sentence. I have never said another word about anyone's typos or spelling. (Which make my eye twitch.)

#14 UrbanFool

UrbanFool

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 644 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:42 PM

That's not correct. Authorized Plural Marriages were performed as late as 1907. And many, not a few, were authorized and performed between 1890 and 1907. The Manifesto was not put into full force until Heber J. Grant. For years Plural Marriages were not legalized by the law of the land. Legalization of marriages by the law of the land is irrelevent when it comes to sealings.


Does this mean you can be sealed in the temple but not be legally married?

#15 Wingnut

Wingnut

    A little nutty, with wings

  • Members
  • 10312 posts
  • LocationCleveland, OH

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:37 PM

Does this mean you can be sealed in the temple but not be legally married?


It was common in the early days of the Church for a woman to be married and sealed to her husband, but later be also sealed to Joseph Smith, or another of the Smith family, or any of the early apostles. It was a status symbol, so be sealed to the prophet.
Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. -- C.S. Lewis

If we're going to be stupid about this, we're going to be stupid on my terms. -- my husband

#16 jayanna

jayanna

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 1062 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 10:38 PM

Well, I for one appreciate that I was able to be married before going to the temple, seeing as I married a non-member :) and we were sealed later. The law of chastity said that we could be with someone to whom we are legally married, it did not say that we have to be sealed. So that means that even though I am worthy to go to the temple while my husband is not, I can still have children, fulfilling the first commandment given to man, and retain my recommend. Also, I really don't think that the church would continue with plural marriage at this time. Even in countries where plural marriages are allowed, and even expected, we do not practice it. I'm sure that if the Lord declared it necessary for us to continue living this law, at this time, a way would have been provided in spite of the legal opposition by the US gov. This is a big planet.

#17 Maya

Maya

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 1+ year
  • 4105 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 12:32 AM

Perhaps you could give a little leeway for those who aren't native English speakers.


Thanks for caring Wingnut! The matter is delt with and closed. Love you guys!

ps please DO tell me of the mistakes, as I may stare 5 minutes to something I have missspelled and not see it. One of the circulating mixtletter messages was so clear to me, that I at first did not understand it was a mixtletter message :lol:
Anyway I am grateful for someone telling me about my mistakes that bother people, so I can fix them. I dont knwo which language the forum spelling chek is for me but it ALL is red anyway!
I been gone some time so not everyone knows me....
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning,Satan shudders and says .... "Oh crap,.... she`s awake!!"[/url] .

#18 GaySaint

GaySaint

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 578 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:56 AM

Maya: I want to answer your question as to why gay people want the word marriage: To me, the answer can be summed up rather easily by saying: because it is society's accepted form of monogamy, and there is currently no other legal system set up to provide protection for our families that is equal (legally) to it.

#19 deseretgov

deseretgov

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 699 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 12:30 AM

Does this mean you can be sealed in the temple but not be legally married?


Historically, Yes it was possible. It was possible to be sealed outside of the temple.

Also, I really don't think that the church would continue with plural marriage at this time. Even in countries where plural marriages are allowed, and even expected, we do not practice it. I'm sure that if the Lord declared it necessary for us to continue living this law, at this time, a way would have been provided in spite of the legal opposition by the US gov. This is a big planet.


The Lord already has declared the necessity of Plural Marriage. Historically we can see that the Manifesto was only a way to hold off the US government and not to actually stop Plural Marriages. As I said it wasn't until Heber J. Grant that the Manifesto was implemented to fully affect the church.

After the issue of the Manifesto in 1890 ways were provided to still Practice Plural Marriage. These included traveling to other countries to perform Plural Marriages. Performing Plural Marriages at sea. The practice of Concubinage. Even marrying another wife after the death of the first was considered a way around the Manifesto and the government. That is the only one that has remained with us today.

It is only because of our wickedness and refusal to learn and live the word of God, that we are prevented from living the fullness of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

But anyway these are examples of times when Sealings were done that did not include legal marriages. Which is something else I learned. What is the difference between a legal and a lawful marriage? Legal is the law of the land. Lawful is by the laws of God.

Edited by deseretgov, 11 August 2010 - 12:33 AM.


#20 FunkyTown

FunkyTown

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3942 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:00 AM

I don't understand why polygamy is outlawed. It's not something I would participate in, but if a man financially supports all of his children and everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see the deal.


It's a huge deal, Urban. A really big deal. People shouldn't be married multiple times. That's completely illegal!

It's much better for a man to be married, have a child out of wedlock with a woman who isn't his wife, then physically support that child from far away.

Or at least, that's not illegal and doesn't result in jail terms, so I assume that the state thinks that's a better option.

Man cheats on his wife: Totally fine! Man says he's married to these other women at the same time and the first wife consents: Clearly a jailworthy offense.

I. Am. A. Socialist. :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq