- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Given that a lot of couples live together for years, and others are unfairly separated by war, misunderstanding or death etc… does anyone think that there is some kind of stand-in for these people? I would think at some point, if that is what both parties want…then yes it can happen. I would suspect it would be during the Millennium. I do not think any blessing will be denied those who seek them…of course I also believe in the power of the Atonement and it being open to everyone not just those who toe the LDS line. Romeo and Juliet would be a classic example. Alright, they are fictional, but they were in love, never were properly married and were suicides too. SamBee wrote:does anyone think that there is some kind of stand-in for these people?
What exactly do you mean by this question? Proxy sealings for the living?
Quote:“It will all get worked out in the next life.”
I know it sounds trite, but I that’s my real answer to questions like this. Fwiw, I think there are many couples who never marry who are in the process of sealing themselves together every bit as much as those who are married. If you’re interested in something I wrote about that:
“Celestial Marriage is Not Exclusive to Mormons” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/11/celestial-marriage-is-not-exclusive-to.html Heber13 wrote:SamBee wrote:does anyone think that there is some kind of stand-in for these people?
What exactly do you mean by this question? Proxy sealings for the living?
No, what I was meaning is that if a couple loved each other in this life, but did not marry or could not marry for whatever reason (e.g. one half is deported/imprisoned, or they live together for years unmarried)… is there a theological get-out clause for them.
There are some states that have a legal definition of: “Common Law Marriage” This is how it is defined in our state:
Quote:What is a common law marriage?
In a handful of states, heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. This type of marriage is called a common law marriage. Contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:
•live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
•hold themselves out as a married couple — typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as “my husband” or “my wife,” and filing a joint tax return, and
•intend to be married.
When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.
Under this condition can the marriage be sealed in the temple?
Mike from Milton.
I’m not sure I understand the questions, but my understanding is that if there is a common law marriage, especially if children are created, then a couple and children can be sealed together after death. I think it is important to realize that many of the marriage laws in the U.S. (such as marriage licenses) came about as a result of Utah polygamists trying to conceal marriages. Congress forced Utah to start registering marriages as a way to prevent polygamous marriages. Kathryn Daynes in her book More Wives than one gives a history of marriage. I wrote about it a while back. She talks about marriages in the middle ages.
Quote:Because the church wanted to make the formation of marriage effortless and easy, it followed Roman law, under which “marriage was virtually a formless transaction.” The marriage was valid if the man and woman simply exchanged vows of marriage in the present, not future, tense. As long as consent was given in the present tense, the church upheld the validity of the marriage even if there were no witnesses present, no clergy officiating, no specific form followed, or no consent given by parents. Even consummation was not necessary if consent was given in the present tense. Moreover, sexual intercourse after promises given in the future tense also created a valid marriage. Certain impediments could, however, invalidate the marriage. These included a previous commitment by blood (consanguinity) or by marriage (affinity), and being impotent or too young. With these exceptions, the church upheld the primacy of present consent between the couple over other considerations. To be sure, the church discouraged the clandestine marriage such consent might foster, and the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stipulated that couples planning to marry announce their intentions and prohibited priests from officiating secret ceremonies.10[Daynes footnotes many texts supporting this position.]
So the point is, many of these marriages in the middle ages were what we would probably consider common law marriages. If we’re going to seal people together from 800 years ago for living the same types of marriages we call common law marriages today, then I see no reason why a couple can’t be sealed posthumously for living a common law marriage. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/11/01/daynes-history-of-marriage-part-2/ SamBee wrote:Heber13 wrote:SamBee wrote:does anyone think that there is some kind of stand-in for these people?
What exactly do you mean by this question? Proxy sealings for the living?
No, what I was meaning is that if a couple loved each other in this life, but did not marry or could not marry for whatever reason (e.g. one half is deported/imprisoned, or they live together for years unmarried)… is there a theological get-out clause for them.
Joseph Smith taught: (through Alma 34:34) “that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.”Spirit is like energy… and like energy is attracted to like energy. No faking it spiritually.
Spiritually, we cannot be practically “owned” like we can be in life’s legal marriage.
So, IMO, we cannot help but be attracted to who we love spiritually.
If someone performs a vicarious temple wedding sealing for someone who’s passed on… it’s no more a marriage than someone saying “I do” is a complete marriage.
It’s more like a blueprint – intention… waiting for the “spirit” or intent to make it happen.
I think Sealing represents a concept. We don’t really even know what it means. Many in The Church thinkthey know. But let’s face it, it is more of an abstract concept of wanting to maintain connection to others. What does that really turn into in the afterlife? *shrug* Nobody knows. My feeling is that people who want to be together, or want to find others with whom they resonate and can progress in the hereafter, they’ll find a way to hang out together. Like attracts like. And the ultimate attraction should be to be like God, the great Unity. That’s a point where everyone can meet.
Just my opinion, but I seriously doubt God has a filing cabinet in his office with marriage certificates in it.
On the other hand, I think that people who fear commitment (i.e. refuse to get married, etc.) are expressing something their soul is lacking in the long run. I am not saying that to come down all hard on that. But think about it? It is ultimately about some kind of fear or lack of connection in their heart (and perhaps for good reasons based on personal experience). But in the end, refusing to let ourselves be emotionally vulnerable and make connections will limit our growth until we are ready to let go.
I believe God is far more patient than we sometimes dare to suspect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.