DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9674--------------------------------------------------
Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 8, 2014, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I ran across something William Penn wrote about the Quaker view
of marriage at hallvworthington.com
HTML http://www.hallvworthington.com/wjournal/journalintro.html:
X. Their way of marriage is peculiar to them, and shows a
distinguishing care above other societies professing
christianity. They say that marriage is an ordinance of God, and
that God only can rightly join man and woman in marriage.
Therefore they use neither priest nor magistrate, but the man
and woman concerned take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of a number of credible witnesses, 'promising unto each
other, with God's assistance, to be loving and faithful in that
relation until death shall separate them.' But, prior to
marriage, they first present themselves to the Monthly Meeting
for the affairs of the church where they reside; there declaring
their intentions to marry, providing the meeting has nothing to
object against it. They are asked the necessary questions, such
as if the parents or guardians have consented with their
intention. The method of the meeting is to record their declared
intention, and to appoint proper persons to inquire of their
conversation and clearness from all others, and whether they
have discharged their duty to their parents or guardians. These
investigators make their report to the next Monthly Meeting with
the intended couple present. In case it appears they have
proceeded orderly, the meeting approves their proposal, and so
records it in their meeting book. And in case the woman is a
widow and has children, due care is there taken that provisions
are made for her children before the re-marriage. They then
advise the parties concerned to appoint a convenient time and
place, and to give fitting notice to their relations, and such
friends and neighbors as they desire should be the witnesses of
their marriage. In the meeting they take one another by the
hand, and by name promise reciprocal love and fidelity as
previously expressed. A narrative certificate is made to which
those married first sign, thereby making it their act and deed;
and then the relatives, spectators, and auditors sign their
names as witnesses of what the couple said and signed. This
certificate is afterwards registered in the meeting's official
record where the marriage was solemnized. After this method of
marriage had been disputed and contested for lack of the
accustomed formality of priest and ring, as it deserves, it was
judged in courts of law to be a proper marriage. This society
refuses ceremonies of ring and priest based on conscience,
reasonably supported in scripture's examples, showing that the
priest had no part in marriage other than to be one of the
witnesses, before whom the Jews used to take one another in
marriage. This people look upon the necessity of a priest in
marriage as an imposition to advance the power and profits of
the clergy. They considered the use of the ring, to be a heathen
and vain custom, which was never in practiced among the people
of God, Jews, or primitive Christians. The words of the usual
form, as 'With my body I worship you,' etc. are hardly
defensible. In short, their method is more careful, exact, and
regular than any form now used, and it is free of other method's
inconveniences. Their care and checks are so many that no
clandestine marriages can be performed among them.
What do you think about this?
#Post#: 9676--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Brad
Date: December 8, 2014, 10:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It sounds okay to me. I was "truly" married in a small empty
chapel with just me and my wife, and we exchanged vows and
prayed to the Lord concerning our union. A few months later we
made it legal through a pastor, but we were already legal in
God's Eye IMO.
#Post#: 9678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 8, 2014, 10:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brad link ---
>
> It sounds okay to me. I was "truly" married in a small
empty chapel with just me and my wife, and we exchanged vows and
prayed to the Lord concerning our union. A few months later we
made it legal through a pastor, but we were already legal in
God's Eye IMO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would think so too. After all, "what God has joined together.
. . " does not mean a church or pastor can do it and I don't
think the government can either. If two people love each other
and want it, then I think God can join them.
I'm not sure all the people with legal licenses from the state
are really married in the eyes of God. For the purposes of
income taxes and inheritances, maybe they're married in the eyes
of the government, but have they all been joined by God? I
can't say I know. If they're fighting like cats and dogs, maybe
not.
#Post#: 9742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Mike
Date: December 23, 2014, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When I first read Hall Worthington many years ago I was duly
impressed but, over the years, I have perceived a degree of
fanaticism creeping into his website.
I can empathise with what he says about the society's criticism
of the now 'popular' wedding format, but I doubt that Quakers
today evoke the tedious initiation procedures which he outlined.
#Post#: 9749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 24, 2014, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^ Yes, I found parts of that site a little shrill. A little too
emphatic.
There aren't that many Quakers around here; but I believe they
do still announce their intention to wed at meetings. Years
ago, they didn't need a marriage license since common law
marriages were still recognized here in Pennsylvania. That
changed in 2005. People were too confused. If you were
traveling through Pennsylvania and stopped at a hotel and you
and your girlfriend signed into a hotel as Mr. and Mrs., that
was enough legal proof to establish the intention to marry. Or
just getting mail that way was. I liked it that way; but the
lawsuits were confusing.
Today most people get the standard license that is signed by
some legal somebody or other or some clergy; but Quakers can't
get those. They have to ask for a "self-uniting marriage
license
HTML http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/pennsylvania/marriage_licenses/cumberland_county.shtml."<br
/> That license is really only to protect them legally and
so
they qualify for tax benefits, etc. I don't think Quakers
believe the license does a thing for them in the eyes of God.
I believe I heard they usually stand up and marry each other at
a meeting. Anyone at the meeting that feels like it can sign
the license as witnesses.
The current problem with "gay marriages" shows something about
how religion reacts when it loses clout. Typical Christianity
dictated the terms of marriage for a long time, imposing their
ideas on others. Now they're losing that influence and the
ability to tell everyone else what is legal and what isn't.
And it makes them mad.
Oh the Presbyterians! One denomination said, in their church
constitution, that marriage for their church was defined however
the states defined it. For real. That's how they defined it.
God's standard was whatever the government said it was. When
states started making gay marriages legal, the Presbyterians'
heads started to spin. Their church constitution said gay
marriages were okay. Then they started to fight about it.
Some were in favor of changing it, and others not. The central
committee was in favor of gay marriages; but they ducked the
issue, saying members of the church needed to vote about it.
I think a lot of the rules are nonsense. Who can say when two
people are really married in the eyes of God? If a man and
woman are fighting like cats and dogs and hate each other, how
could they be one in the eyes of God?
#Post#: 9750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: coldwar
Date: December 24, 2014, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^Mike - "I have perceived a degree of fanaticism creeping into
his website"
So far, as a new Quaker, I have found this site to be
invaluable, but from other more moderate - should I say
Modern-- Quaker sites, and from the Quakers I'm now with, I see
they're all over the map on just about any topic you care to
mention. Of particular note, there's this fellow named Ben Pink
Dandelion who did the 2014 Swarthmore Lecture -
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRO-lGD9emM
First, I had to LOL at his name, but after listening through the
Lecture, I gained respect for the man... I think he defined
Quakerism pretty well, as being "indefinable". Just about
everything he said, he would in the next breath turn around and
"un-say" it! But I also realized, this is exactly what I signed
on for. So, has Quakerism become wishy-washy, especially when
compared to the days of George Fox? Definitely yes, no question
about that. But, is this a bad thing? Not to me it isn't. It
allows me to revere God in silence, and let Him be whom He
chooses to be for me, in the Meeting Community.
So to get this back on topic, I can certainly see the point that
marriage before God is not the same as marriage before Priests
and other Clergy, nor before the State. Even the most
conservative of all, being George Fox and his followers
recognized that, but went overboard with all the regulations
they chose to attach to it themselves.
Would George Fox have recognized Gay Marriage? I would guess
99.9% not. Would the Meeting which I attend recognize it? I
would guess, with a strong attendance of United Church of Canada
(similar to United Methodists) Pastors at our Meeting (4 of
them, including our University Chaplain) I would guess 99.9%
yes. Would I personally recognize Gay Marriage? No I would not,
but I also recognize that it is none of my business; it's God's
business, and when I stand before Him in judgment, He may well
tell me that I'm wrong - OR - as a Quaker, I believe I'm
personally taught by Jesus, and He may soon tell me how I'm
wrong about that before the Judgment.
I'm pretty sure here that I'm telling you the way Quakers
worship in Meeting, even though I'm new at it.
^Kerry - "There aren't that many Quakers around here..."
That really surprises me - wasn't Penn. the original "Quaker
State"? What happened?
#Post#: 9762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Marriage: Religious, Legal, or Personal?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 25, 2014, 7:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: coldwar link ---
>
> ^Mike - "I have perceived a degree of fanaticism creeping into
his website"
>
> So far, as a new Quaker, I have found this site to be
invaluable, but from other more moderate - should I say
Modern-- Quaker sites, and from the Quakers I'm now with, I see
they're all over the map on just about any topic you care to
mention. Of particular note, there's this fellow named Ben Pink
Dandelion who did the 2014 Swarthmore Lecture -
--- End Quote ---
I finally got the time to take a look at this video.
--- Quote ---
> First, I had to LOL at his name, but after listening through
the Lecture, I gained respect for the man... I think he defined
Quakerism pretty well, as being "indefinable". Just about
everything he said, he would in the next breath turn around and
"un-say" it! But I also realized, this is exactly what I signed
on for. So, has Quakerism become wishy-washy, especially when
compared to the days of George Fox? Definitely yes, no question
about that. But, is this a bad thing? Not to me it isn't. It
allows me to revere God in silence, and let Him be whom He
chooses to be for me, in the Meeting Community.
>
> So to get this back on topic, I can certainly see the point
that marriage before God is not the same as marriage before
Priests and other Clergy, nor before the State. Even the most
conservative of all, being George Fox and his followers
recognized that, but went overboard with all the regulations
they chose to attach to it themselves.
--- End Quote ---
It looked to me as if they were stressing that marriage should
not be entered into "lightly." It looked like their version of
"publishing the banns." Some people rush into marriage. Some
people even may want to back out after getting engaged but lack
the courage to say so. Indians consult astrologers about
marriages; and often if one family objects to a marriage, they
will say their astrologer advised against it. This saves face.
--- Quote ---
> Would George Fox have recognized Gay Marriage? I would guess
99.9% not. Would the Meeting which I attend recognize it? I
would guess, with a strong attendance of United Church of Canada
(similar to United Methodists) Pastors at our Meeting (4 of
them, including our University Chaplain) I would guess 99.9%
yes. Would I personally recognize Gay Marriage? No I would not,
but I also recognize that it is none of my business; it's God's
business, and when I stand before Him in judgment, He may well
tell me that I'm wrong - OR - as a Quaker, I believe I'm
personally taught by Jesus, and He may soon tell me how I'm
wrong about that before the Judgment.
>
> I'm pretty sure here that I'm telling you the way Quakers
worship in Meeting, even though I'm new at it.
>
>
> ^Kerry - "There aren't that many Quakers around here..."
>
> That really surprises me - wasn't Penn. the original "Quaker
State"? What happened?
>
--- End Quote ---
They allowed people of all persuasions to move to Pennsylvania,
and the Quakers were soon outnumbered.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1