bytor2112 Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Scenario: Man is sealed to wife and later divorces. They get together a year or so later and are "intimate". IS this adultery? They are still sealed together, but civilly divorced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) Unless I'm mistaken one of the preresiquites for non-sinful sexual relations is legally married, so yeah, it'd be adultery.We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.I take it though your question is aimed at some rousing discussion on the nuances and implications of the teaching of the Savior that if A and B get divorced (baring fornication) and B marries C its adultery because A and B are still in the eyes of the Lord married, ergo if they are still married in the eyes of the Lord enough that its adultery they should logically thinking be married enough for it not to be fornication.Now you've got my curious as to how this thread turns out. Edited June 3, 2009 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 The temple endowment also addresses the legal/lawful issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixiemom Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Uh...I guess I'm confused as to the adultry part. Were either of you married when you had a "moment" together? If you were that would be adultry. Being sealed but not legally married doesn't give you any rights or excuses.Any sexual contact with out being married is a sin. Sealed or not sealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Scenario: Man is sealed to wife and later divorces. They get together a year or so later and are "intimate". IS this adultery? They are still sealed together, but civilly divorced.Technically, it’s fornication as neither of them are married. But that doesn’t address the crux of your question.Yes, this violates the law of chastity, which is that men and women shall not have sexual relations except with whom they are legally and lawfully married. As currently stated, the law of chastity has nothing to do with the Sealing ordinance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utcowboy Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Isn't a "sealing" married for time and all eternity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honor Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Isn't a "sealing" married for time and all eternity?Nope, they are "sealed" for time and all eternity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nope, they are "sealed" for time and all eternity.Yes. The sealing for a married couple is no different than that from father to child. Sealing is different than marriage. It is just that at the time of marriage, the temple gives us the opportunity to bind the couple and their unborn kids in one fell swoop. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honor Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Were either of you married when you had a "moment" together?Just thought it was worth pointing out that bytor didn't say that this was a personal situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Just thought it was worth pointing out that bytor didn't say that this was a personal situation.NO...it's not about me. My inactive best buddy asked me me the question earlier today, thought it might be an interesting topic. But, it looks pretty cut and dry...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honor Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 NO...it's not about me. My inactive best buddy asked me me the question earlier today, thought it might be an interesting topic. But, it looks pretty cut and dry......Nobody wants to interject an unpopular opinion that they wont shut up about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Yep, pretty cut and dry. Adultery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'd be more inclined to call it fornication:adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.fornication - voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 LOL, awesome situation. Legal Fornication. The sealing is still in force though... I would have to say... I have no freakin idea. Probably depends on the intent and level of intimacy. Where do they want to go from here? Was it just a booty call or are they considering hookin up permanently? My interest is aroused. We are gonna need close follow-up on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsMagnolia Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Milkbone. it is NOT legal fornication. Sexual sin is sin. No matter what shape or form it comes in. No matter how we try to rationalize it. I think we as saints need to remember that God will not be mocked and stop trying to find ways to "bend" God's laws to fit our situations. Just my thoughts, Mags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Legal Fornication. Sounds so formal. Much more pleasant imagery is found by saying stuff like making woopee, knowing each other in the Biblical sense or even the more current knocking booties. At least I think that is current. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Milkbone. it is NOT legal fornication. Sexual sin is sin. No matter what shape or form it comes in. No matter how we try to rationalize it. I think we as saints need to remember that God will not be mocked and stop trying to find ways to "bend" God's laws to fit our situations. Just my thoughts,MagsIts Mikbone not Milkbone.Legally it is fornication.How does God view it? I don't know.When one looks at the original polygamists of our church that then had to live under the law of the land. These issues must have come into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I vote for fornication.. Okay maybe that didn't sound quite right after I read what I just typed. Sounds like I'm all for fornication. But since both parties are single and not married then that would fall under the fornication definition to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-train Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I'm not their bishop, how could I possibly know? -a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I vote for fornication..I vote for Milkbone over Mikbone. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Where's that darn laugh button? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverafter Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) The most current doctrine from a Prophet says (in the Proclamation) that a couple can procreate only if they are "lawfully" married. They left out the legally. Because many people today are legally married but still committing adultery because they are not lawfully married. "Lawfully" means according to the laws of God. Now the Laws of God, our church, tells us to marry legally too, but once having done that, if one spouse uses divorce in a way that God does not agree with then in Gods eyes you are still legally married. Legal according to God's Constitutional laws. If one spouse is faithful & the other forces divorce on them, then, in the eyes of God they are still 100% completely "lawfully" married, whether LDS or not, as long as the faithful spouse doesn't break their covenants too by dating or remarriage, but remains faithful to their errant & abandoning spouse. For you can't have it both ways, still married to the 1st & able to date others. God does not recognize or honor unjustified forced divorce, to him it's invalid & the marriage still holds. Many people think that they can date or remarry after divorce & their 1st sealing is still intact, but the dating is unfaithfulness to the 1st spouse (if they are living) & thus breaks the sealing, even if it's not done officially yet. It just takes one faithful spouse to keep the marriage 100% "lawfully" intact, in the eyes of God, no matter if the other spouse divorces you & is out committing adulterous affairs by dating or remarriage. The divorce is invalid with God. And all will be put right in the end. Edited June 4, 2009 by foreverafter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Sounds so formal. Much more pleasant imagery is found by saying stuff like making woopee, knowing each other in the Biblical sense or even the more current knocking booties. At least I think that is current.I think "knocking booties" or "boot-knocking" went out in 1994.Where's that darn laugh button?It's been much needed on this thread.The most current doctrine from a Prophet says (in the Proclamation) that a couple can procreate only if they are "lawfully" married. They left out the legally. Because many people today are legally married but still committing adultery because they are not lawfully married. "Lawfully" means according to the laws of God. Now the Laws of God, our church, tells us to marry legally too, but once having done that, if one spouse uses divorce in a way that God does not agree with then in Gods eyes you are still legally married. Legal according to God's Constitutional laws. If one spouse is faithful & the other forces divorce on them, then, in the eyes of God they are still 100% completely "lawfully" married, whether LDS or not, as long as the faithful spouse doesn't break their covenants too by dating or remarriage, but remains faithful to their errant & abandoning spouse. For you can't have it both ways, still married to the 1st & able to date others. God does not recognize or honor unjustified forced divorce, to him it's invalid & the marriage still holds.Many people think that they can date or remarry after divorce & their 1st sealing is still intact, but the dating is unfaithfulness to the 1st spouse (if they are living) & thus breaks the sealing, even if it's not done officially yet.It just takes one faithful spouse to keep the marriage 100% "lawfully" intact, in the eyes of God, no matter if the other spouse divorces you & is out committing adulterous affairs by dating or remarriage. The divorce is invalid with God.Oh my gosh. Not this again. Seriously.By the way, Merriam-Webster begs to differ with your definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deseretgov Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 What if the formed their own nation of two people, declared independence. Then they legally married each other under the laws of their own nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarnished Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Oh my gosh. Not this again. Seriously.By the way, Merriam-Webster begs to differ with your definition.I am actually surprised it took till the third page for it to show up. The most current doctrine from a Prophet says (in the Proclamation) that a couple can procreate only if they are "lawfully" married. They left out the legally. Because many people today are legally married but still committing adultery because they are not lawfully married. "Lawfully" means according to the laws of God. Now the Laws of God, our church, tells us to marry legally too, but once having done that, if one spouse uses divorce in a way that God does not agree with then in Gods eyes you are still legally married. Legal according to God's Constitutional laws.If one spouse is faithful & the other forces divorce on them, then, in the eyes of God they are still 100% completely "lawfully" married, whether LDS or not, as long as the faithful spouse doesn't break their covenants too by dating or remarriage, but remains faithful to their errant & abandoning spouse. For you can't have it both ways, still married to the 1st & able to date others. God does not recognize or honor unjustified forced divorce, to him it's invalid & the marriage still holds.Many people think that they can date or remarry after divorce & their 1st sealing is still intact, but the dating is unfaithfulness to the 1st spouse (if they are living) & thus breaks the sealing, even if it's not done officially yet.It just takes one faithful spouse to keep the marriage 100% "lawfully" intact, in the eyes of God, no matter if the other spouse divorces you & is out committing adulterous affairs by dating or remarriage. The divorce is invalid with God.Foreverafter, this is not how it works. Otherwise a woman who got divorced from her husband could not have her sealing broken by the correct authority and then go and remarry another man in the temple. She would be in your rules committing adultery. But I know quite a few women who have divorced their temple wed husband and then gotten married to another man in the temple after having her previous sealing broken. The temple sealing is meant to keep us together as families, it is not intended as a way to keep our spouses even though they may have chosen to divorce us. No matter how much we really want our spouse to stay with us no matter of hoping or telling ourselves otherwise will change the fact that if a temple sealing is broken by the proper authority that the sealing is broken and you are free to marry someone else.In response to the OP's question, this would indeed be considered adultery or rather fornication as neither of them are married any longer, because even though they are still sealed they are no longer legally married. I would think that it would be a difficult thing to keep from happening, after years of being intimate with that person it would seem almost natural. However, to keep it from being a sexual sin the couple would have to get remarried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.