The Oaks have a pre-nup...

[_Fence Sitter]

I attended the funeral of the mother of a friend. She was widowed at a fairly young age and went on to remarry another man who was also a widow. The man had 10 children. She was married to this second man who survived her, for more years than her first husband and had spent more time raising the younger of his children than the husband's first wife who had also died young. The first marriages for both of these people were temple marriages, so they were both sealed to their original spouses.

So the second husband and some of his children spoke at the funeral, and it was obvious how much they loved and missed this woman. But, as I sat there listening to these emotional tributes to deceased, I could not help thinking that in the screwed up theology that is Families are Forever, both living husband and the surviving children of his who had known no other mother than the deceased, were never going to be with her again as a family.

Yeah, families are forever except if you are a widow or widower or if you were raised by someone else besides the mother to whom you are sealed.

This concept of "eternal marriage" really does not consider how quickly, in terms of an infinite amount of time, we humans make and even break attachments. If there really is such a thing as eternal marriage, I am guessing a few hundred years into it most couples are ready for eternal divorce.

[_Holy Ghost]

What Oaks did was wise. He preserved his deceased wife’s assets for her own children. Suppose Oaks remarried a widow with her own children and then he died. His first wife’s assets could conceivably be distributed to his second wife’s children. What he did was smart, prudent and a preemptive avoidance of future conflict.

I suppose that Oaks would not have had any say in what happened with June's inherited assets unless she had willed them over to Oaks, or June, the lawyer's wife, had no will.

Either way, June's inherited assets were his to do with as he pleases, or so supposes what he explained. Either way, Oaks was essentially buying his daughters' consent to his remarrying.

[_Holy Ghost]

I attended the funeral of the mother of a friend. She was widowed at a fairly young age and went on to remarry another man who was also a widow. The man had 10 children. She was married to this second man who survived her, for more years than her first husband and had spent more time raising the younger of his children than the husband's first wife who had also died young. The first marriages for both of these people were temple marriages, so they were both sealed to their original spouses.

So the second husband and some of his children spoke at the funeral, and it was obvious how much they loved and missed this woman. But, as I sat there listening to these emotional tributes to deceased, I could not help thinking that in the screwed up theology that is Families are Forever, both living husband and the surviving children of his who had known no other mother than the deceased, were never going to be with her again as a family.

Yeah, families are forever except if you are a widow or widower or if you were raised by someone else besides the mother to whom you are sealed.

This concept of "eternal marriage" really does not consider how quickly, in terms of an infinite amount of time, we humans make and even break attachments. If there really is such a thing as eternal marriage, I am guessing a few hundred years into it most couples are ready for eternal divorce.

tsk, tsk, sitter. In Joseph Smith style, second wife now deceased can be sealed to second husband too. It's called 'polyandry for the dead.'

[_moksha]

Children from a former marriage can sometimes be a pain in the butt for new marriages, even without considerations of future inheritance.

In the Mormon culture, once the children see the fire arrows landing on the funerary longship, it is time to break out the flagons of Postum and make strong oaths against any future spouse of the surviving parent.

But only if the children are female, right? The male children don't have this "problem."

Male children/step-children can be equally troublesome to their parent's new marriage.

[_Lemmie]

Children from a former marriage can sometimes be a pain in the butt for new marriages, even without considerations of future inheritance.

In the Mormon culture, once the children see the fire arrows landing on the funerary longship, it is time to break out the flagons of Postum and make strong oaths against any future spouse of the surviving parent.

But only if the children are female, right? The male children don't have this "problem."

Male children/step-children can be equally troublesome to their parent's new marriage.

Ok, I give up. Did you even read the article?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't know how anyone can turn this into a case of sexism:

First, June approved of my remarrying. As I mentioned earlier, during her year-long battle with cancer she came to realize that she would die before me. I was never willing to discuss my remarrying, but she frequently told our four daughters that she knew I would need to remarry and that when that time came they should help me find a companion who would fit well into our family, and welcome her. That was her wise preparation, and it proved very important to all of us. I did not begin to look for a wife until all my daughters had come to me individually and told me they were ready for me to remarry. They did not want me to be alone and were emotionally ready for me to proceed. My remarrying was not a problem for our two sons.

It seems to me the women in his family were controlling the narrative, and a loving husband and father wouldn't have considered marriage without his female family members urging him to do so, out of love.

- Doc

[_moksha]

Ok, I give up. Did you even read the article?

Don't you find that practice to run contrary to most discussions on this forum?
I suppose I could give it a try sometime.

yours truly,
Elder Tabula R. Moksha

[_Lemmie]

Ok, I give up. Did you even read the article?

Don't you find that practice to run contrary to most discussions on this forum?
I suppose I could give it a try sometime.

yours truly,
Elder Tabula R. Moksha

[_6EQUJ5]

I did not begin to look for a wife until all my daughters had come to me individually and told me they were ready for me to remarry. They did not want me to be alone and were emotionally ready for me to proceed. My remarrying was not a problem for our two sons.

The sexism in that paragraph is sickening. As a woman you read stuff like this and your heart just sinks to see the stereotypes forced on women and men. It's so discouraging, and de-humanizing.

Yeah. F**k that guy! Who is he to be mindful of his daughter's feelings regarding the death of their mother? Who is he to know that complicated feelings that arise when a widow or widower remarries!? What a self righteous d**k! Can you imaging loving your children so much that you are sensitive to their feelings and care about their well-being? For the love of God! These Mormon men are MONSTERS! They must be stopped.

[_Lemmie]

Yeah. F**k that guy! Who is he to be mindful of his daughter's feelings regarding the death of their mother? Who is he to know that complicated feelings that arise when a widow or widower remarries!? What a self righteous d**k! Can you imaging loving your children so much that you are sensitive to their feelings and care about their well-being? For the love of God! These Mormon men are MONSTERS! They must be stopped.

6e! Welcome back. Where have you been? We need people to give more f**ks around here, and you certainly do not disappoint.

(Just one tiny note, though, be sure to read ALL the words in a quote, especially THE LAST TEN, it helps in getting the point. )