A young woman who grew up with my kids now lives in Rexburg, Idaho. She sent us a wedding reception invitation for their reception here.

My wife got the skinny on why in the pictures there was a toddler and an infant with the toddler wearing a t-shirt saying mommy will you marry my daddy.

The story goes that this couple started dating before his divorce was finalized. They are living with his parents and she is carrying for his children.

Coincidentally, the day the invite came my wife shared a YouTube of a woman doing a funny bit as if she were Jane Eyre.

I've asked my family and they don't know but don't think it is even something to ask given the circumstances.

So I will ask RfM.

Regardless of the fact that he has full custody and his new ex-wife is a drug addict, can this happy couple in good conscience get married in the temple given he was married when they started dating?

Are you asking us as ex-Mormons? Like, how we define these things for ourselves now?

Or are you asking "How does this line up against all the myriad hypocrisies already heaped upon the church's plate?"

I, personally, think of marriage as simply a government document where the united entry has legal standing and can be recognized for certain legal and cultural privileges.

Each relationship should be able to define the boundaries between the parties involved, whether married or not. For instance, sometimes processing for divorce can take a while or sometimes the married persons have decided to each other that they intend to break things off between them and thus, the "marriage" is simply paperwork and doesn't emotionally hold weight between them.

I dunno. I wouldn't want to speculate about the details when I wasn't privvy to any agreements going on between them.

If you're strictly referring to the church and how it'd stand on this, I can see it being easy enough with the mother of the kids being a drug addict. Didn't keep her covenants. By right as a righteous man, the guy had a duty to find a righteous woman to be his worthy eternal partner, with no matter to the technical legal filing involved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2023 01:40PM by blackcoatsdaughter.

The latter. Thanks. I figured that was probably the case. It is a patriarchy.

I would concur with your observation. My divorce took years to complete, my former spouse was hell bent on taking 100% of present and future income, savings, securities, and any other asset she could think of.

Uh oh ! ...

"Regardless of the fact that he has full custody and his new ex-wife is a drug addict"

What is the difference between a drug addict and a religion addict (TBM)? It seems to me the latter is a way more expensive habit.

I don't know the details but she might be both. I feel bad for her. He moved a new mother into his parent's house to live with him. It sounds really unconventional for Mormons. I don't know how I would feel if it were my daughter. Apparently, his future moth in law who I know doesn't like him. That's the gossip.

  

Lol.

“Honey, we all deserve to wear white.”

—- Annie Savoy in Bull Durham


A marriage license is how you register as a family with the government. Everything else is window dressing and of no legal significance.

Awful subject line.

The question you pose is not about dating a married man. It is about marrying a divorced man. Huge difference.

And if they started dating before the divorce was finalized, he was married only in a technical sense. And whether his ex was a drug addict or a candidate for sainthood is completely irrelevant.

I see zero problem with them getting married, either from a government or Mormon perspective. See my quote above.

No, it is about dating a married man. Is that ok in Mormonism with the view to a temple marriage.

I guess I knew the answer. From the religion who brought us polygamy.

Obviously, there is shortage of subjects to post about today.

Huh?

appropriate response

Since each bishop gets their inspiration from a different source ( their back sides), there is no definitive answer to your question.

Oh, so true D&D. So very true. Thank you.

Seems to me the couple's ability to obtain the SCC blessing to the union will depends on how much tithing the marriage will bring to the bank.

It's not worth it.

I hope he doesn't. She's made some decisions around boyfriends that were unrealistic so seeing this makes me hope for the best. I hope he isn't one to have a pattern of marrying for her sake. Jumping into a toddler and infant and being their mommy before her marriage must be something else.

have the right bishop and stake president, anything is possible. I came of missionary age in the mid 1970s. A kid in the class behind me knocked up his girlfriend and even though everybody knew about it he still managed to end up out in the mission field. His proud papa who was wired into the stake power structure made it happen. Left the pregnant girlfriend behind to fend for herself. No consequences. Anybody else in similar circumstances would have been forced into a too young marriage. Seeing that should have turned some lights on for me. Alas, it didn't

:(

Sure according to tscc if they pay tithing and are appropriately brainwashed they are outstanding TBMs and more than worthy to marry in the temple.

Higher law.

I find this whole thing confusing, and kind of ridiculous, frankly. It sounds for all the world like ward gossip. Even as a TBM I found that pretty despicable, and my opinion of it has not improved over the years.

So let me start over and explain my POV in more detail.

For starters, when I was a mishie in Brazil, divorce was illegal. May still be that way, for all I know. It was possible to get a legal separation, but not a divorce, making it impossible to remarry someone else.

It was quite common for couples to be living together and raising families, but one or both spouses were technically married to someone else. These people could get baptized into the Mormon Church. They did have to be interviewed by the MP, If they could convince the MP that they were living together as a committed couple and would be married if it weren't for the laws in Brazil, they were cleared for baptism. I never heard of a couple who failed to clear that bar.

That seemed like a perfectly reasonable solution to me at the time, and the Church obviously thought so too. Their supposed sin was a paperwork sin imposed on them by the government and the Catholic Church. It could and should be ignored.

Now, about this couple in Rexburg.

You said they started dating before his divorce was finalized. I assume that means he had filed for divorce, and they were trying to resolve issues like property settlement, alimony, child support, custody, whatever. That can take time.

In the next sentence you say they are living with his parents, and she is taking care of his kids. Who is "they", he and his children, or he and the woman and the children? When you say "are", do you mean they are living with his parents now, or are you saying they were living with his parents when the divorce was yet to be finalized?

How long had it been from the time he filed for divorce until he started dating this woman? Also, what exactly do you mean by dating? If they are living together, even at his parents, that sounds like more than dating, even if they had separate bedrooms or whatever.

Personally, I don't consider dating someone who has filed for divorce and has established their own residence as "dating a married person", any more than the couples we baptized in Brazil who were not legally married were considered "living in sin."

Are you of the opinion that dating anyone prior to the ink being dry on the final divorce decree is a case of moral turpitude? Even among Mormons I suspect that is a minority position.


I've asked a lot of questions. Your post wasn't clear on a number of things, but no obligation to answer. My opinion would be the same, regardless of the clarifications unless there were really extenuating circumstances you didn't mention.

I don't consider dating before the divorce is final an extenuating circumstance. Chad and Lori killing their spouses and children so they could get married - now *there* is an extenuating circumstance.


My opinion - if the couple are active members in good standing in their ward(s) and want to be an accepted new family in the ward, then the bishop should give them TRs, and the ward should be happy for them and do everything in their power to give this new family community support to start this phase of their new life. They are making a big commitment and deserve and probably need community support.

It is none of the bishop's business how they met. His business is right here and now - a family is making a formal legal commitment to be a family and raise their children together, His job is to help, here, now. Period. And if it is not the bishop's business how they met, it sure as hell isn't the other ward members' business. They are taking a big step. Effing help them, don't whisper behind their back.


Other than that, I don't have strong feelings on the subject.

"Honey, we all deserve to wear white."

Speaking as a nevermo, I don't think that anyone I know would blink an eye if a legally separated couple, having filed for divorce and living apart, started to date other people. No one I know would refer to that as "dating a married person." Sometimes couples do a trial separation, where they informally live apart for a period of time to gauge how they feel about things, and that's another story.

I'm familiar with the historical situation in Brazil regarding divorce -- yet another instance of Catholic meddling in political affairs.

Thank you for your reply. This is just gossip. I admit I judged her because when my kids were in the ward with her she did some strange things. For example, she was in love with our neighbor's daughter's boyfriend. The daughter, this girl and the boyfriend would go on dates. I don't understand it. These are all Mormon kids at the time.

I don't know anything other than the ward gossip. I hope she has a great life. Taking on a ready made family is a task of a true saint.

I admit I judged her harshly as a doormat making another mistake with a boy. I apologize for any strong feelings this post may have set of for you.

Strange story I wanted to share and I admit the dating a married man judgement was harsh and does make me feel like being in my believer days. But I have daughters and one just got engaged. I get to hang out with him this weekend in the context of flying to Utah for another daughter's graduation. Lucky for me I don't have to listen to Holland.

The bishop and stake president can evaluate with the power of discernment if this couple has kept the law of chastity and is pure and worthy to enter the house of the lord lol.

There is so much more to a marriage than just sex. Money management, family relationships in this case there is an ex wife and children involved. Blending families together. All the church is asking do you pay a full tithing? Do you keep the word of wisdom? Do you keep the law of chastity. Back when I was an active LDS member there was a divorced women she had 4 children she was about 35 years old. This RM comes home from his mission he is 21 years old and he married her within 6 months of being home from his mission. They had a baby the next year. He was 22 a dad of 5 children. Well that marriage didn't last they got divorced 2 years later. I am sure both were/are worthy people to be inside the temple but I think taking on 4 step children all at once was something he couldn't do.

Wow. Interesting. When I was a kid my neighbors were a mother and daughter who both married twin 16 year old kids. The mother's marriage didn't last but last I heard Romeo and Juliet were still together with double digit kids.