Really????

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Really????

Post 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]
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Really????

Post 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!
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Really????

Post by _Buffalo »

I'd imagine that the rules don't really apply to the children of famous, wealthy Mormons.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Really????

Post by _just me »

Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Really????

Post 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.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Re: Really????

Post 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.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Really????

Post 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.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Really????

Post 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.
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Really????

Post 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.
_Polygamy-Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8091
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:07 am

Re: Really????

Post 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.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Post Reply