Reading the online news instead of drafting my honours submission, I found this.
quote: Woman marries dead boyfriend
DRESSED in a demure black suit, a 35-year-old Frenchwoman has married her dead boyfriend in a macabre exchange of vows that required authorisation from the French president
I guess they'd have to alter the vows slightly...
[ February 10, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
*wonders what the honeymoon is going to be like*
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
...Directed by Tim Burton...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
There is no emoticon suitable to express what I'm feeling now...
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Eh, post-death marriages have been known to occur...
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
It'll be the first wedding that isn't entirely boring.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not sure whether to post a reply here or in the questions about Mormonism thread.
I had some near-relative who lost his fiancee to a spider bite. He never married and took care of her parents for the rest of his life.
I should think the main problem would be in terms of life insurance, pension benefits etc.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Right, it seems like it's mostly a legal thing.
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
quote: I'm not sure whether to post a reply here or in the questions about Mormonism thread.
Huh?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Right, it seems like it's mostly a legal thing.
I had thought this, but then I saw comments in the article to the effect of how her feelings for him hadn't changed, despite his death.
Legally, I'm sure some of those things (life insurance etc) could be sorted out without actually getting married after death.
Liquor & Fireworks: reading through Hobbes' LDS thread, I think Mormonism allows marriage (and sealing) to be performed after the death of one of the parties.
(Of course, I could be very wrong here... )
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
quote: Liquor & Fireworks: reading through Hobbes' LDS thread, I think Mormonism allows marriage (and sealing) to be performed after the death of one of the parties.
I am a mormon and I have never heard anything like that before. Sounds like a big misunderstanding to me.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Yuck. I didn't know that. I can understand it's conforting if you wanted to marry someone and he died brutally, but I still find it gross in a certain way. Not mentioning the fact that he may have been against wedding. I mean, nobody asked him...
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I am a mormon and I have never heard anything like that before. Sounds like a big misunderstanding to me.
Well, of course, I can't find the quote now. I was sure I'd read someone saying it... But as I said, it's quite possible I could be wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
L&F -- I don't know about just one of the parties, but I've heard several places (by ex mormons with no particular grudge against the church (yes, there are ex mormons with grudges, these weren't)) of people being married and sealed after death (both parties).
After a little googling, here's a direct historical reference: http://www.jamesbehunin.org/Isaac/ped/np4.htm (search for "sealed" on that page). Its not clear on whether or not the woman being sealed to was also dead, but either way its an example of sealing after death. I've seen several sites which assert Smith was sealed to women after his death, however I have not found direct references (such as that one) to it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The practice of being sealed to your own parents only came about in the administration of the fourth church president. Before that, folks were sealed more as a organizational thing, like adoption into a tribe if you will. And my grandma was sealed to her dead husband last year, but they had been married when they were alive. He just didn't want to do the church stuff. He actually said "you all can just take care of that after I die."
Now say a couple had a child together but weren't married. If one dies and the other joins the church and down the road wants to be sealed to the parent of their children, I don't know what would happen.
P.S. posting temple scripts on the internet is not something someone who is indifferent to the church would do. I'm not demanding that you remove the link, I'm just saying they aren't impartial. Anyway, I wouldn't know if it was accurate even if I looked.
[ February 11, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My problem is that I don't feel like the spirit of the person (ie thoughts and feelings) is represented by the body.
I think this steps on the toes of some Mormon things but I don't know. I don't really have any opinion about their practices and I don't want to go there. Just giving my opinion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its the only very direct reference to the practice I could find in a quick search; I know essentially nothing about the veracity of that source, though why they would be lying on that particular issue (its just a minor reference on a long document) I can't think of a reason for.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
pooka, the link fugu posted is not a temple script, it's a genealogical record.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, okay. Just sounded like it might be, so I didn't click.
quote:though why they would be lying on that particular issue (its just a minor reference on a long document) I can't think of a reason for.
If someone has promised to keep something secret and then publishes it, I don't see how they can be considered a neutral source. Insiders of all organizations who "blow the whistle" typically do so because they think there is something wrong. And if there is something wrong, I support them being held immune from keeping whatever promise they made. But I don't expect the organization they blew the whistle on to thank them for doing it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Why would he have promised to keep secret that one of his ancestors was sealed to his wife after his death?
I’ll say it again – the link isn’t about the LDS church, it’s the guy’s family tree, and it has a footnote that one of the marriages was sealed after the husband died. As such, it’s evidence that the practice exists (though not necessarily that it’s officially recognized).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think that's a neutral source. To quote myself:
quote:I know essentially nothing about the veracity of that source
The sources I was previously referring to are separate; they are people I know in various capacities.
I just don't see any particular motive for this source lying on that issue. Also, from my admittedly weak understanding of the subject, LDS records of who's sealed to who/who's baptized are not considered sacrosanct, not in the same way priesthood signs and similar are.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
thank you, dkw. thank you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sealings happen after death all the time. My grandparents were sealed after they both died.
Marriages don't, though.
I found this out after I watched the movie Always. I was 12 or so, and cried and cried when Richard Dreyfuss died. I went to my mom looking for reassurance that at least they'd be together later, but no dice. It isn't love or "meant-to-be" that's the bond - you actually have to get married. I was so irritated.
There will another sorting out of spouses and such, but everyone will be present for it.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
does that work like the baptism thing, where you have to do it for it to be valid, but they don't have to accept it?
and if we die before we marry, are we doomed to spend all eternity alone?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dear Mr. Ashcroft's flunky.
We know you are reading this. You, or one of your co-horts read everything on the internet so you can save us from the evil terrorist networks.
Could you please infrom your boss to suggest to his boss, President Bush, that when he makes his statement today about the Marriage Amendment, that instead of "one man and one woman" he best save us from this evil French perversion and add "one live man and one live woman."
p.s. Thanks for watching over us the way only a truly caring big brother can. I appreciate it greatly. There is no reason to put me on the "possible subersive" list. Honest. You can trust me. I love big brother.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
celia60,
Yes, it works like baptism for the dead. It has to be accepted to be valid.
I'm not sure what the official belief is on the second part of your question.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dan is cool.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Celia:"if we die before we marry, are we doomed to spend all eternity alone?"
No. In Mormon theology, nobody will be penalized for failing to do something in life that they never had a meaningful opportunity to do. So, someone who never had a real chance to get married will someday be given that chance. Exactly how that chance will be granted is unknown, but it will happen.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Pulling the discussion away from Mormon theology and back to the original topic –
I can see why someone would want to do this. Part of what civil marriage is is society’s recognition of a relationship. There are legal purposes too, obviously, and religious marriage carries a whole ‘nother set of meanings. But formal recognition of the bond between two people is still a part of it. These two people had planned to be married (under the law she had to prove that before permission for the posthumous wedding could be granted) but he died before the wedding. They had made the commitment to be married, and she thinks of herself as his widow, but the relationship never had the chance to be formally recognized. The French law aligns her legal and social status with her personal/emotional reality.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This reminds me of the woman who's husband died right after they were married, and she got an order to have his sperm taken so that she could later be artificially insemenated (sp?). She had the first kid two or three years later.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
True Story about my wife's Great Aunt and surprisingly, great uncle.
In the 1930's while growing up, the lovely young woman name Joy fell madly in love with a man named Rasti.
Rasti returned the love.
Alas, her family was from Northern Italy. His from Southern Italy. Even though they had moved to the United States decades ago, Rasti's mother would not allow the two to be wed.
The continued to date, and eventually became engaged in the mid 40's. Yet she lived in her house, and he with his mother. His mother hated her and strove for decades to break them up.
In 1990, Rasti's elderly mother passed away. By now, the two love birds were in their 60's, but they still dolted on each other.
Then the shocking news came out.
They had been secretly married for over 40 years. "The Hill" in St. Louis is a bastion of Italian American immigrants, and these two were centers of that neighborhood. Nobody knew they were married. They never had any children, and I am not sure they ever consumated their marriage until after Rasti's mother passed away.
Within six months of Rasti's mother passing away the two senior honeymooners were nestled into their own home, and live happily to this day, a testament to--well--love? respect of elders? traditional family values?
Where this is leading me. I can see a similar situation resulting in a love that could not be blessed by the church, but where one of the couple dies before the road blocks could be removed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: They had been secretly married for over 40 years.
RIGHT ON!!!! Way to go Dan's fam. That's the best news I've heard all day.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That is an interesting story, though sad that the (unknown to her) mother in law was so... evil seems too weak a word.
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
I had heard something about a couple being selaed after one or both (I can't remember) were dead, which didn't bother me. But the part about being married after death was something I don't remember ever hearing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't have a problem with this. We have funerals for people who pass on, why not marriages to people we loved in life, as dkw said, to officialize it as a memorial to promises already made?
Its not like, depending on the law of whatever land you live in I suppose, its illegal to fall in love with someone else who is alive and get married.
I admit that the idea a couple has to have been married during this life in order to be seeled together is new to me. Seems logical, however, as us mortals usually cannot read the hearts and minds of people and can only go with the evidence of actions taken. This brings my own question about sealings. Are sealings and marriages considered different? I know that we consider people who tie the knot outside the Temple as married, but is the label "marriage" a secular definition?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Huh?
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)