Second, without any anticipation of June’s predeceasing me, I had kept records throughout our marriage of the gifts and inheritances she received from her parents, including what we purchased with those resources. I was, therefore, in a position to give our children their inheritance from their mother (and her parents) within a year following her death. This was done by transfers of property that had monetary value and by loving division of possessions of sentiment. I made this early distribution so that when the time came for me to remarry, none of the children would have any of the fear I had sometimes observed (as a lawyer or judge or Church leader) that the “new wife” would inherit some of “Mother’s property.” I wanted that potential concern eliminated long before I remarried and entered into an appropriate prenuptial agreement with a new wife. It was.
He kept a written record of everything his wife’s parents gave her...even though he had no plans to remarry...he was worried about his second wife inheriting stuff from his first...but the three of them are sealed together for eternity.
Why would an Apostle believe he needed a prenuptial contract with a woman he believes he will be spending eternity with?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
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.
IHAQ, I suspect it has to do with inheritance for their respective children.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
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.
GameOver wrote: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.
So what we are saying here is that an Apostle and his wife can have personal assets that aren’t consecrated to the Church so long as they are in his wife’s name.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
So what we are saying here is that an Apostle and his wife can have personal assets that aren’t consecrated to the Church so long as they are in his wife’s name.
That’s very true and a good point. But when have any of the modern GAs consecrated their personal assets to the Church?
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.
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.
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.
moksha wrote: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."
Maksutov wrote:What about Rusty and Wendy? And how does Sheri show up in all this?
Sheri probably gets periodic cash payments for services rendered. Maybe she is "consulting" for one of the church controlled companies to hide the extras she gets? Maybe Rusty hands out a "bonus" to her as CEO of Deseret Book when she does an extraordinary job? Or perhaps a bitcoin account suddenly appears in her name? ....
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen