Masquerouge
Deity
It's quite a landmark, that's for sure
I usually do not like modern churches' design but this one is great.
Eran's All-New Mormonism Thread
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
- Status
It's quite a landmark, that's for sure
I usually do not like modern churches' design but this one is great.
In a marriage performed in a Temple, the couple are "sealed" to each other (and their children) "for time and for all eternity." Assuming that they are faithful (to God and to one another), we believe their marriage remains in force after death.
When a widow/-er of such a marriage remarries (as my grandmother did), it is typically* only until death. That's how we avoid an eternal web of husband-wife-husband-wife . . . . problems.
*Traditionally, I believe, men could be sealed to more than one wife, but women could be sealed to only a single man. I believe the modern practice is to discourage that and just seal one-to-one. I could be wrong on this, and I don't have an authoritative cite to give you.
Thanks for that.
So there's no ill-will about not being faithful between the first's death and the second? Sorry, not trying to sound flip, it's an honest question.
Also, how does the marriage outside the church work? Suppose a mormon wants to marry a non-morman...would the church sanction it?
So there's no ill-will about not being faithful between the first's death and the second? Sorry, not trying to sound flip, it's an honest question.
Also, how does the marriage outside the church work? Suppose a mormon wants to marry a non-morman...would the church sanction it?
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
It seems rather strange to me..
If a couple marries 'celestially' - that is, eternally, and one of them dies, then how is the new wife/husband going to feel about being only a 'temporary' solution? The whole point of marriage is that there's a sort of commitment, but if you're saying 'I'm not as committed to you as I am to my dead wife/husband', well, that just seems to defy the whole point of getting a new marriage.
If a couple marries 'celestially' - that is, eternally, and one of them dies, then how is the new wife/husband going to feel about being only a 'temporary' solution? The whole point of marriage is that there's a sort of commitment, but if you're saying 'I'm not as committed to you as I am to my dead wife/husband', well, that just seems to defy the whole point of getting a new marriage.
I haven't been-there-done-that, so I couldn't say.
Slightly more seriously, individual Mormons will have the same issues with re-marriage that other people do: is it disrespectful to the departed spouse to re-marry too quickly? What is "too quickly"? Etc. I have heard apocryphal stories of a dying spouse (typically wife) telling husband she wants him to remarry soon. (Often this seems to be the wife's assessment that her husband is mildly incompetent, and needs someone taking care of him.)
Theologically, there is no "faithfulness" issue: one is not "unfaithful" to the deceased spouse by re-marrying and having *ahem* "marital relations" *cough, cough* with the new spouse.
Marriages "outside the church" - both outside of a Temple and/or between Mormons and non-Mormons can and do happen. They are "sanctioned" by the Church in the sense that the couple are recognized as husband and wife. But it is not an "eternal marriage" (i.e., effective after death). The couple may still qualify to go to the Temple and be "sealed" to one another, which would then make the marriage the same as if they had originally been married in the Temple. If they have had children in the interim (or even before their marriage), the children are part of the sealing ceremony and are sealed to their parents.
For a contrasting point of view, the new spouse has at least as much of a commitment as anyone outside of the LDS Church is offering: until death.ironduck said:
But whatever philosophical interest the question may hold, it doesn't seem to have any practical effect. The fact is, death happens, and people re-marry. (Divorce also happens, and people re-marry, but that is treated differently.) In my own observation, those marriages seem to be as likely to be good (or bad) as the original marriages. I haven't heard any complaints.
Your question also calls to mind the old anecdote, illustrating that this is by no means a distinctly LDS issue:
some old anecdote said:
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that. If you're married on earth and in the hereafter, then wouldn't that be adultery to have relations (sexual or not) while the surviving spouse is still here on earth? Or is there some kind of 'time-out' while the surviving spouse continues to live their life out?
"Time out" is, I suppose, one way to put it. The marriage still exists when one partner is alive and the other isn't, but in a different sense from when they are both in the same place.
So how is it not adultery then? Or does it have to do with the polygamy thing from way back when? By that I mean, since at one time polygamy was acceptable in the LDS society, does it kinda sorta fall under that? Honest questions here, not trying to flame or anything.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
So its like a pseudo-polygamy?
I always though marriage was "untill death do us apart".
I always though marriage was "untill death do us apart".
Obviously it's different in the LDS society.
I don't think it has anything to do with polygamy, at least not the way that we practiced temporal plural marriage. I guess I would describe the marriage as being in a limbo state where the partner on earth can marry again if they choose, but the partner in the next life is waiting. I suppose it is "like" plural marriage in that a person is simultaneoulsy married to two people, but "married" in two different senses.
That's the point of LDS temple marriages, is that in such circumstances we believe it not to be.
And yet another way to consider it: adultery is sexual relations (and I think it does need to be sexual relations, , we can debate what qualifies as "sex," later a la Gingrich and Clinton) with a person who is not your spouse. In this hypothetical, however, both the deceased first wife and living second wife are your spouse, legally and lawfully wed. One is your spouse forever (assuming both of you kept/keep your covenants), while you enjoy that relationship with the other only so long as both of you are alive.
To be clear: I can certainly understand your point of view; it is simply not the point of view of Mormonism.
, we can debate what qualifies as "sex," later a la Gingrich and Clinton) with a person who is not your spouse. In this hypothetical, however, both the deceased first wife and living second wife are your spouse, legally and lawfully wed. One is your spouse forever (assuming both of you kept/keep your covenants), while you enjoy that relationship with the other only so long as both of you are alive.To be clear: I can certainly understand your point of view; it is simply not the point of view of Mormonism.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
What about Divorce? What is the Mormon's view on Divorce?
Another question to add to the table, What happens if a Mormon marries a non-Mormon? And would they be allowed to hold the marriage in the temple or just in a church?
Marriage in the temple can only be between two Mormons who are worthy to enter the temple. The sealing (the part that makes it eternal) is separate from the civil part of the marriage; thus civil divorce does not automatically mean that the temple marriage is ended - to do that requires a different process.
Not here it isn't! So fess up...what's with the caffeine? I always thought the prohibition was against caffeine, not coffee.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Is coffee ice cream okay?
The prohibition, laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 89 , prohibits "hot drinks" and "strong drinks". At first it was only a suggestion, when first given by Joseph Smith; later leaders of the Church, who we believe were also prophets, made it a commandment (known as the Word of Wisdom), and also explained what "hot" drinks are: coffee in any form, and leaf tea.
Now, you say, that is odd. I can see maybe coffee - it can be addictive - but why leaf tea? What's wrong with that?
There are health benefits to following the Word of Wisdom in its fullness - I believe that actual studies have shown that active Mormons live longer , and the studies weren't done by the church - but (this is more my opinion than doctrine) there is also value in obeying. There is strength in giving up something relatively harmless but not particularly beneficial, as it helps us avoid harmful things as well.
But that's the "why", you asked about the "what". So yes, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, coffee and leaf tea are out. Caffiene is not the reason for it, however. This is a common misconception, and it is true that some members feel that drinking caffeine violates the spirit of the law (which is, ultimately, a health code after all). Me, I avoid caffeiene, usually, because it makes me feel weird.
Now, you say, that is odd. I can see maybe coffee - it can be addictive - but why leaf tea? What's wrong with that?
There are health benefits to following the Word of Wisdom in its fullness - I believe that actual studies have shown that active Mormons live longer , and the studies weren't done by the church - but (this is more my opinion than doctrine) there is also value in obeying. There is strength in giving up something relatively harmless but not particularly beneficial, as it helps us avoid harmful things as well.
But that's the "why", you asked about the "what". So yes, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, coffee and leaf tea are out. Caffiene is not the reason for it, however. This is a common misconception, and it is true that some members feel that drinking caffeine violates the spirit of the law (which is, ultimately, a health code after all). Me, I avoid caffeiene, usually, because it makes me feel weird.
Not if it was made with coffee beans. I suppose a Mormon might argue that it is still not "coffee" , and eat it anyways while still saying they obey the WoW (what the "cool kids" call it . . .), which, since I think it has not been specifically prohibited, might be a defensible position.
But you're mormon, you should be used to feeling weird! Sorry! Joke! Couldn't resist...Eran said:
Anyways... I'm thinking back to a couple of books I read and enjoyed as a kid, and there was Mormons on one side of the town, and gentiles on the other side. They were able to co-exist fairly peacefully. This was back around the 1890's or so, when things were much worse than in later years. I remember the author making the point several times that there was coffee for the gentiles, and milk for the mormons. I guess as a kid because of that misconception I always read it as caffeine.
So I guess my follow up question is, Why not caffeine too? While it's a 'tame' drug, a drug it is and addictive as well.
- Status
Similar threads
