LDS perspective on convenience marriage for $ ?


Recommended Posts

My first thoughts are that it's just wrong. But the circumstances are interesting, if nothing else.

The arrangement the woman was presented with doesn't include expectations of physcial intimacy, so she wouldn't be selling herself. They are virtually strangers, meeting only for consideration of the benefits described below.

The man is wheelchair bound, elderly (in 80's with lots of health issues, not expected to live long), and has professional and veteran pensions plus an insurance policy that would set her up with income for life, after he passes. He paid into the policy for years intending for his late wife to receive financial security, but she passed before him. The beneficiary must be a spouse only, so his children aren't eligible, and he doesn't want to waste the money.

The woman (in her 50's) is 30 years younger than he, raised her family as a single mom, has struggled and been single most of her life (first husband deceased before church membership, then sealed briefly to an abuser). She triumphed over her own critical health issues, is unable to work because of residual health, and lives on an inadequately low fixed income, unable to afford needed health care.

The insurance requirements states the wife must live with him 6 to 12 months to receive the benefits, unless he passes sooner after entering the [civil] marriage. He'd appreciate help and companionship, and the opportunity to help someone; she'd enjoy serving, being needed, and financial security.

Back in the day of plural and/or arranged marriages, this scenario would have been acceptable for mutual benefit and survival. With an LDS perspective today, is this wrong or personal choice? Would love to see opinions and discussion.

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alana

I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it makes a mockery of marriage. If anything it shows how being married has much more benefits than just living with someone. As long as they are willing to be honest to their vows it sounds beneficial to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic
Hidden

I don't have a problem with it. If it was temple sealing, I might, but as a legal, civil relationship, which these benefits, I see it helping someone significantly -- the woman who has not had an easy life.

Link to comment

i don't think there is anything more doctrinally "wrong" with it than when you have 2 ppl that have both been sealed, spouses die, they decide they have enough years left that they don't want to be alone. they want someone to spend their time with, wake up to, fill their physical needs in the absence of their eternal companion. so they get a civil marriage to make it all "ok", and finish out their life with another person. i even know of some that were married civilly in the temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments and discussion. I find the creativity of such a situation fascinating, yet wonder if the reality of such an arrangement could blow up into disaster.

I've imagined myself in her place with such an option, wondering if I could, or would do it. Caring for and helping a frail 80 year old man nearing the end of life is no doubt difficult work. To me marriage is a sacred covenant, and is only warranted if there's love. I certainly wouldn't judge them, but going into a financial arrangement like that--waiting for the husband to pass away--seems like an awkward position to be in, especially if she were young enough that she might want to marry again afterward.

Then again, if it's honest, respectful, and beneficial to both the husband and wife, it could work out nicely and become an example of sharing Christlike love.

I wonder if entering into a temporary civil marriage like that might dissuade future priesthood holders from being interested in her later? Seems like those would be valid considerations.

The responses so far aren't what I expected. Guess we're a very open-minded group. ;) Comments appreciated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear hello Madame,

I am a wealthy Nigerian Prince who has recently been widdowed. I myself am quite old and will also soon die. Unfortunately, my pension and insurance can only go to my wife. I do not want my children to be poor. I have heard good things about you and would like for you to be my legal wife. Because of laws here, I only need your consent. You do not even have travel here. In return, you will be the benefficiary of my funds when I die. I only need your routing number to add to the inheritance documents. I only ask in return that you remember my 2 children and give a portion to them.

I anxously wait your reply,

Prince Mordorbund

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For generations, marriages were a business arrangement by the parents and sometimes a matchmaker. Kids married the person chosen for them, and they grew to love and honor each other.

If the marriage is so two people can take care of each other, and they like each other. I see no harm nor problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think there is anything more doctrinally "wrong" with it than when you have 2 ppl that have both been sealed, spouses die, they decide they have enough years left that they don't want to be alone. they want someone to spend their time with, wake up to, fill their physical needs in the absence of their eternal companion. so they get a civil marriage to make it all "ok", and finish out their life with another person. i even know of some that were married civilly in the temple.

I find it interesting that you believe this. I was listening to mormon radio a couple of weeks ago when they were interviewing Gary Ceran (see this article for background on his story: Blessed by adversity: Utah man refuses to wallow in past | Deseret News).

Gary lived a righteous LDS life with his family, but after their family's horrible accident and wife's and 2 kids' subsequent deaths, he decided to re-marry just 6 months later. From listening to him speak for an hour on this entire experience, I felt like this man is the prime example of someone living their life with true Christ-like attributes. The feelings he had for his wife were still very strong and real, yet he still chose to move on and find another woman that he could spend the rest of his life with. I don't think he made an unwise decision and I don't think he would have done it had he not known that it was something his wife wanted him to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i may have been misunderstood. i don't have a problem with it. when someone is sealed the idea is that is their spouse forever, even after death. so if a spouse dies there should be no eternal need to remarry. so if one chooses to remarry what would be the motives, it's not eternal companionship?

different articles i've read say that ppl are better off financially married, children are better raised with 2 parents, most ppl are emotionally healthier with a friend around, many even say getting married is the best way to address sexual needs (it's a sin otherwise). boils down to... business partner (children and finance support), friendship, and sex. so all these are good reasons to get married?

ppl remarrying for time only can be married in the temple so the church supports this kind of marriage. it's not "wrong"

this lady would be marring for.... financial support and friendship.... don't see much of a difference from the first. it's not "wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealthy and widowed Nigerian prince?! I got married too late.

Considering that marrying for love is a relatively rare and recent thing, why not? If they're both happy and willing. In fact, I think it's a rather good idea in such situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

AM I the only one who saw the scam in mordorbunds reply? I hope the op is not falling victim to a scam like the one Mordorbund posted?

If this is between two people who know eachother well and the arrangement is backed my people who know about these things ie an attourney etc Then I say the choice is entirely up to them.

Be careful going into this something like this that seems to good to be true usually isnt true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the inevitable, "If it's okay for someone to marry without the intention of having children and without love, simply for economic benefit, why is gay marriage not acceptable?"

You know it's coming. I just preempted it.

By 11 days, not bad, not bad at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandma did this :) Quite a few times actually... She's been married about 8 times. Shes a member. Shes also a nurse and takes care of these older guys shes marrying. The last one ended up being a complete creep who'd had some kind of child abuse charges. She ended up divorcing him. And, its not like my grandma really needs the money...its the idea of taking care of someone that she likes.

She pulled me aside when I was 15 and told me "Liz, get out of High School marry a rich guy with money and take care of him for a few years before he dies. Then, it'll pay for your college and perhaps even beyond.

"

"thanks grandma."

"Anytime dear"

My mom just laughed when I told her....My grandmas kinda eccentric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoying this thread, I'll have to share some thoughts for those who believe it's ok as long as it's beneficial. Most Muslims are Sunni, the the second largest branch of Isalm are the Shia or Shiites. My residence in Saudi is technically in Shiite territory, between Qateef and the neighboring country of Bahrain, just south of Iran which is predominantly Shia. Unlike the Sunni, Shia have what is known as temporary marriages. Sometimes they are called "weekend marriages," other times "vacation marriages," but mostly they are known as temporary marriages, where the "expiration date" is agreed to in advance by the contracting parties. With the exception of the expiration date, it's handled like a regular marriage. Marriages in Islam are not a sacrament but a contract where the dowry is negotiated. Anything the bride wants to include in the contract must be provided by the groom as along as it does not violate the laws of Islam. So if she wants a house in the mountains near Taif and a second in Monaco and a third in the Bahamas, such is acceptable. She could even stipulate a monthly stipend. In any event, Sunnis condemn this as prostitution. But it's different in one sense from our prostitution does allow more rights than our prostitutes get in their practice. The real odd thing is that in Saudi you now find women who prefer these kinds of marriages because not just because of all the benefits but because of the power it gives them in a culture where men have more visible/public power. Hence, it's liked by both the men and the women who enter into these marriages, as no one is forced into them. (Of course, before we laugh at them, we need to remember that many of our marriages are for all purposes temporary. I even remember when I was a student in Utah . . . but maybe given this is a public forum I best shy away from that thought!)

Also, as you know, Muslims can have up to four wives. Polygamy, or more properly, polygany. (Again, most Muslims, and many anthropologists, refer to us in America as practicing serial polygamy, which is actually a mix of polygamy and temporary marriages but that's another story.) Besdes polygamy, the Middle East, including North Africa, consist of tribal cultures, something we don''t really understand, just as we didn't understand it when what is now the US was being colonized. What it means in part is that one's loyalty is to one's tribe, not to the nation of which one is a citizen. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a family, the al-Sa'ud family, which is part of a larger tribe. Moreover, the East as well as Africa are parts of the world where the smallest unit of society is the family, not the individual. In Europe and the children of Europe (i.e., the US, Canada, Australia, etc) have cultures where the smallest unit is the individual. Latin America, with respects to family, is more like the countries of the East (including the Middle and the Far East). And to some extent the US was such prior to WWII. In any event, in countries where the smallest unit is the family, while one's job is one's job, his income is used to support not only his own immediate family, but his extended family and even those of his village or tribe. When you see little kids in Mexico trying to sell chicle or wash your car windows, the money they earn helps out the larger family. It's not their own as it is for children in the US. There are good points to this. But there is a darker side in Saudi, one that involves marriage among the Saudi royal family, which would naturally be Sunni. Wikileaks revealed an American diplomatic cable which dealt with corruption within the royal family. The royal family, which is protected by the US government from all enemies foreign and "domestic", similar to what is the case with Bahrain, considers oil it's own private, not national, property. Most of the oil revenues goes to the royal family, which consists of between 6,000 and 9,000 princes and princesses. (Think tribal.) Wikileaks revealed how corrupt the system is. It showed that in 1996, the lowliest member of the most remote branch of the royal family received a stipend of $800/month. From there it gets better, much better. Sons of the country's founder got stipends between $200,000 to $270,000/month. Their children got $27,000/month; grandchildren got $13,000/month; great-great-grandchildren got $8,000/month. And within the diplomatic cables that someone might not piece together with the total picture--it read, "the stipends also provide a substantial incentive for royals to procreate since the stipends begin at birth." Remember, this is in Saud where first cousin marriages are the marriage of choice, where the smallest unit is the family, where families are large, where individual incomes provide for the greater family at large, and where loyalty is to the tribe before anyone else. Also, factor in the possibility of more than one wife, with each wife likely being a princess. It begins to give you how beneficial the arrangement is. The father gets his stipend, his wife or wives get their stipends, and where each child is getting his or her stipend, all adding to the family and tribal wealth. I have one friend, whose father has four wives and my friend comes from a family of 35 children. While he is not a member of the royal family, imagine what kind of family wealth we'd be talking about if his family were part of the royal family. Again, everything is mutually beneficial, including the marraiges and all each marriage affords.

Lastly, and this is back in the US. My mother has a good friend, an adopted daughter of sorts. She's in her late 50s and recently lost her husband. She doesn't like the loneliness and desperately wants to marry. But she makes it clear that she's still in love with her first husband, to whom she was sealed. She's very good friends with a man in the ward who's also widowed. She'd like to marry him but she and the RS sisters have talked about the fact that he likely can't satisfy her physical needs in bed since he's about 10 years older. Hence, she's looking for someone closer to her age who can give her everything she wants. Of course, since she was sealed, she's definitely looking for a temporary marriage where the expiration date is the death of one of the parties.

Remember, in all instances, the marriages are certainly beneficial just as they were with Lizzy's grandmother! Suffice it to say, I'm not Solomon and his wisdom escapes me. I think I'll stay away from an answer to the original question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share