Page 1 of 2

Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:33 pm
by _Lucretia MacEvil
From Widipedia:

Immediately after Romney's return from France in December 1968, the pair reconnected and agreed to get married as soon as possible.[12] Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.[4][14]

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:40 pm
by _Infymus
The whole thing sounds right except for being married outside the cult first. That's a big, big no no.

But exclusion of family? Oh yeah, happens all the time. It's a good way to extract tithing out of existing members by using guilt and shame - get your temple recommends ready!

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:43 pm
by _Buffalo
I'd imagine that the rules don't really apply to the children of famous, wealthy Mormons.

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:51 pm
by _just me
Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:52 pm
by _Infymus
Buffalo wrote:I'd imagine that the rules don't really apply to the children of famous, wealthy Mormons.


Yep. They don't have to wear garments, don't have to pay tithing or anything. As long as they are famous and Mormon, they've got a free ride to the CK.

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:56 pm
by _Lucretia MacEvil
just me wrote:Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.


Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:02 pm
by _DarkHelmet
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:
just me wrote:Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.


Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.


That's a good point. How many temples were there back then? 10? It might have been standard procedure for members in states like Michigan to get married and then plan the pilgrimage to the temple for a later date. I imagine most members in Michigan could not afford to go to the temple very often. The Romneys could, but it just wasn't an issue back then because that's how everyone did it.

Re: Really????

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:11 pm
by _Jason Bourne
just me wrote:Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.


Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.


There is still a rule that allows for civil wedding with a waiver of the one year wait is someone has to travel a long distance to get to a temple.

Re: Really????

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:13 am
by _Infymus
Jason Bourne wrote:
just me wrote:Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.


Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.


There is still a rule that allows for civil wedding with a waiver of the one year wait is someone has to travel a long distance to get to a temple.


I totally forgot about this rule of a 1 year wait if you get married civily first.

Ah, to me, yet another form of control in a way to get couples to go to the temple first.

Always with the temple, and always the temple requires tithes.

It's a sick circle.

I recall my attorney that did all of the adoption paperwork for my father and I in my teens. He and his wife married outside the temple and were punished for it. They couldn't get married in the temple and it really hurt them a lot. They finally got permission at about 8 or 9 months to go get sealed - but they had to get it from the mysterious FP.

Re: Really????

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:18 am
by _Polygamy-Porter
He was a typical HORNY RM.

Like most RMs, he knew the only way he could have sex was to put a ring on her finger first.