Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

Sealings can be done right away now!

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I cannot imagine this causing any issue for a young couple who are devout and believes in the sanctity of a Temple Sealing. Many will simply go that route directly. But for those who have non member family and or significant friends who can now have a wedding that can be inclusive and then still be sealed, well they will do so and avoid the heartache and angst the prior policy caused. This is a good thing.  It is fairly sad that there seems to be such a Pharisaical trend among some on things like this. I shouldn't be surprised.  There are many such things in the church, and many who have a smug self righteousness about them that it causes them to take such a stance.

I agree.  I honestly believe that some thought it was good to exclude anyone who was not able to be in the temple.  I'm not pointing fingers here....but I know some in my own life who almost seemed to enjoy it.  That's pretty warped, IMO and it has no place in Christ's church to feel this way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Gray said:

That has never been in the case in US law. Churches only have to abide by nondiscrimination laws when they are performing a service for fees paid by the government.

Things can easily change.  Before the last couple of years, it had never been the case in US law to allow SSM.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I honestly believe that some thought it was good to exclude anyone who was not able to be in the temple.  I'm not pointing fingers here....but I know some in my own life who almost seemed to enjoy it.  That's pretty warped, IMO and it has no place in Christ's church to feel this way.

tenor.gif?itemid=4141383

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Things can easily change.  Before the last couple of years, it had never been the case in US law to allow SSM.

There was never any constitutional justification to ban same sex marriage, however. There is similarly nothing in the constitution that would justify the government in enforcing equal treatment within private religious practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, USU78 said:

"Shocking" is a word choice belying what, exactly?  Before I respond, I'd like some clarification what you mean precisely. 

I mean that religions in the US have broad freedom to discriminate, even in ways most would find shocking. It would be shocking for a church today for example to refuse to baptize or marry short people, or black people, or veterans. But they could do it without any risk of government intervention.

Similarly, religions are free to discriminate based on religion. Indeed, most do. This would fall on the not shocking end of the spectrum. Churches refusing to perform same sex marriage is something I disagree with, but it's fairly common and not shocking. There is no danger of them ever being forced to do so.

Equal protection laws do not apply to churches when they are acting as churches. Therefore the church's recent change in policy has no effect on future risk.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, USU78 said:

In US law every person has the liberty to make any choice and do any act and believe and say any thing without government interference, so long as no legitimate government interest supersedes.  Calling Churches discriminators is not a useful descriptor.  All you're doing is throwing bombs.

This is what the incel kids today call "being a snowflake." No one is throwing bombs. "Discriminate" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Gray said:

There was never any constitutional justification to ban same sex marriage, however. There is similarly nothing in the constitution that would justify the government in enforcing equal treatment within private religious practice.

We're not talking about the government enforcing equal treatment within a private religious practice though.  We are talking about the chances of the government one day deciding that it will no longer allow those who discriminate against SSM to perform legal marriages.  Federally recognized marriages are different than private religious practice.  The government could support a church's right to their private religious ceremonies while still stopping them from making those ceremonies legally binding in the eyes of the government.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

tenor.gif?itemid=4141383

Why so serious?

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 6:00 PM, Oliblish said:

Why is that? 

I believe that this could be a problem with the new policy.  People will be judged by self-righteous individuals as being less than if they choose a civil wedding over a temple wedding even though the church has officially said it is perfectly acceptable.  Because of this it will probably take time before civil weddings become the norm because of the stigma they have had.

     

 

I'm sure that some people will act self-righteous about it but I also think that the opposite will be true as well. If someone chooses to get married in the Temple despite inactive family members not being able to attend then that person will be treated poorly just because they put marriage in the Temple as the highest priority.
I fear that the only people who will be free from criticism for choosing to be married in the Temple are those who have all active family members.
Marriage in the Temple is my highest priority and I have inactive siblings who are very anti-LDS. Though I have a long time to think about what I would actually do in my specific situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think the secret is just to elope.....whether you go to the temple or a drivethrough and are married by Elvis or anything in-between. :) 

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think the secret is just to elope...

I like what one of my former young men did a couple of years ago. He (excommunicated dad and mum the only member in her family) and his convert wife (only member in her family) were sealed in the temple in a very small ceremony. Then the newlyweds took all the nieces and nephews swimming for a couple of hours, after which everyone was invited to an all-you-can-eat buffet at his/her own expense. Easy.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 11:54 AM, The Nehor said:

That would be a good thing. If you are willing to give up a temple sealing because you consider it unimportant compared to the relative tinsel of a big social wedding then you probably should not be entering into those covenants anyway.

My only concern is that couples will focus on the big social wedding and do the sealing as an afterthought. That is their choice though and I am noticing that church policies lately have been giving us more rope to hang ourselves with if we choose.

Yes, this could indeed be a problem.  The Roman Catholic Church found that no delays in getting married led to bad marriages.  Better to run the prospective couple through counseling, training seminars, and perhaps an appointment in booked up cathedrals 6 to 9 months in the future.  Gives time for a couple to think it all through, and to sign papers agreeing to raise children within the faith (for mixed marriages), or to convert the non-Catholic partner so that a High Mass Wedding can take place.  Delays improve the chances for a successful marriage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, bluebell said:

We're not talking about the government enforcing equal treatment within a private religious practice though.  We are talking about the chances of the government one day deciding that it will no longer allow those who discriminate against SSM to perform legal marriages.  Federally recognized marriages are different than private religious practice.  The government could support a church's right to their private religious ceremonies while still stopping them from making those ceremonies legally binding in the eyes of the government.

I don't see it since churches, even when performing marriage ceremonies, do not fall under public accommodation laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

 

Quote

Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] The definition of public accommodation within the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests" and so is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

Even a private person who is authorized to officiate in a marriage doesn't have to follow public accommodation laws, so long as he or she is not doing it as a business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't see it since churches, even when performing marriage ceremonies, do not fall under public accommodation laws:

[...]

Even a private person who is authorized to officiate in a marriage doesn't have to follow public accommodation laws, so long as he or she is not doing it as a business.

That is going to the notion that the government can't currently force churches to perform certain weddings. As I understand it though, that isn't the concern Bluebell is discussing - it's the ability to perform marriages in the first place.

And that is something the government most certainly can control.

For example, here in Texas, a marriage can only be performed by a judge or a religious leader. Here is the relevant statute:

Texas Family Code Sec. 2.202 
Persons Authorized to Conduct Ceremony
(a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
     (1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
     (2) a Jewish rabbi;
     (3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony;
     (4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, retired judge of a municipal court, associate judge of a statutory probate court, retired associate judge of a statutory probate court, associate judge of a county court at law, retired associate judge of a county court at law, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state; and
     (5) a retired judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

 

So, in order to prevent religious leaders from performing marriages, the state simply needs to amend the statute to remove sections a1-a3. 

Or, alternatively, they could replace sections a1-a3 with a requirement that the person must be licensed in order to perform a marriage, and then the state could then impose a non-discrimination requirement on the licensing system since those who will be receiving licenses will be performing acts officially recognized by the state. 

Now, I don't see anything like that happening anytime in the near future - especially in Texas - but is it something that could happen eventually? Yeah, I think so.  

 

Edited by Amulek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think the secret is just to elope.....whether you go to the temple or a drivethrough and are married by Elvis or anything in-between. :) 

I wish I had eloped to the temple. Me and my husband and maybe our parents. That would be it. I hated our wedding day.  It was so much drama and it must be done this way or this way. I wanted simple and easy and mil got a fancy, lets send out 800 invitations wedding. 

We have lots of elopements in my family. Wish I had kept the same thing but in the temple. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't see it since churches, even when performing marriage ceremonies, do not fall under public accommodation laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

 

Even a private person who is authorized to officiate in a marriage doesn't have to follow public accommodation laws, so long as he or she is not doing it as a business.

 

Amulek explained my position.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

That is going to the notion that the government can't currently force churches to perform certain weddings. As I understand it though, that isn't the concern Bluebell is discussing - it's the ability to perform marriages in the first place.

And that is something the government most certainly can control.

For example, here in Texas, a marriage can only be performed by a judge or a religious leader. Here is the relevant statute:

Texas Family Code Sec. 2.202 
Persons Authorized to Conduct Ceremony
(a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
     (1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
     (2) a Jewish rabbi;
     (3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony;
     (4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, retired judge of a municipal court, associate judge of a statutory probate court, retired associate judge of a statutory probate court, associate judge of a county court at law, retired associate judge of a county court at law, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state; and
     (5) a retired judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

 

So, in order to prevent religious leaders from performing marriages, the state simply needs to amend the statute to remove sections a1-a3. 

Or, alternatively, they could replace sections a1-a3 with a requirement that the person must be licensed in order to perform a marriage, and then the state could then impose a non-discrimination requirement on the licensing system since those who will be receiving licenses will be performing acts officially recognized by the state. 

Now, I don't see anything like that happening anytime in the near future - especially in Texas - but is it something that could happen eventually? Yeah, I think so.  

 

I don't see a law preventing ministers/rabbis etc from officiating ever passing constitutional muster.

Let's say worst case scenario it did. The first amendment is abolished, dogs and cats living together, etc. How does changing the policy now buy the church anything or protect it from any potential dystopian future? They could have done so immediately after (in the dystopian future) the first amendment was abolished. Policies can be changed nearly instantaneously if needed.

If anything changes requiring marriage law, I could see someone challenging the idea that you either have to be an ordained clergy to marry someone , or a government official. I could see that expanding to include non-clergy who simply want a license to perform a wedding without the religious connotation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I wish I had eloped to the temple. Me and my husband and maybe our parents. That would be it. I hated our wedding day.  It was so much drama and it must be done this way or this way. I wanted simple and easy and mil got a fancy, lets send out 800 invitations wedding. 

We have lots of elopements in my family. Wish I had kept the same thing but in the temple. 

I probably would not actually elope. The receptions of my siblings have all been good and fun with more emphasis on ice cream bars and gourmet popsicles rather then well-ordered ridiculousness and stuff people can get upset about. If the choice is between 800 attendees I do not know and elopement though I would take the latter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I probably would not actually elope. The receptions of my siblings have all been good and fun with more emphasis on ice cream bars and gourmet popsicles rather then well-ordered ridiculousness and stuff people can get upset about. If the choice is between 800 attendees I do not know and elopement though I would take the latter.

You’d do what your woman wanted.  FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I probably would not actually elope. The receptions of my siblings have all been good and fun with more emphasis on ice cream bars and gourmet popsicles rather then well-ordered ridiculousness and stuff people can get upset about. If the choice is between 800 attendees I do not know and elopement though I would take the latter.

I knew no one. We got married in my husband's hometown. 800 miles away from mine hometown. There are so many things I regret about our wedding. My mil pretty much ran it all and I was too afraid to stand up to her then. I don't  have many good memories of our wedding.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, bluebell said:

We're not talking about the government enforcing equal treatment within a private religious practice though.  We are talking about the chances of the government one day deciding that it will no longer allow those who discriminate against SSM to perform legal marriages.  Federally recognized marriages are different than private religious practice.  The government could support a church's right to their private religious ceremonies while still stopping them from making those ceremonies legally binding in the eyes of the government.

Some like to insist that we are uselessly worrying about this issue, but I think it's a valid concern.  When the Government declared same sex marriage legal--rather than allowing states to decide, they crossed a line, IMO. 

And, I don't think it's such a challenge to think they could cross another line in insisting that churches which don't comply with their demands can lose their rights.  We saw it happen over the polygamy issue.  The Govt. was getting ready to seize the church's property and essentially destroy it, until Pres. Woodruff issued the 1st manifesto.  That incident in our history tells me that in the right circumstances, the govt. could move against the church once again to try to force it to bow to their will.

I think this is a good step in separating the marriage from the sealing--making it more acceptable to be married outside the temple and sealed in the temple. It's one argument to use to the govt. that a sealing should not fall under the govt.'s right to regulate marriage among it's citizens.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't see a law preventing ministers/rabbis etc from officiating ever passing constitutional muster.

Why not? Where in the Constitution does it authorize religious leaders to issue marriage licenses?

Is it before or after the section where it authorizes them to administer drivers license tests?

I'm sorry, but even though we have a strong common law tradition of allowing religious leaders to officiate marriages, there's nothing in the Constitution which would prevent states from requiring that all marriages be performed by a magistrate. Such a law would apply to all religions equally and would have no impact on anyone's freedom of religion.

You could still be 'church married' by whoever you wanted - Pastor, Rabbi, Shaman, High Priestess, etc. - but you would still have to go to the government in order to be 'civilly married.' 

And, should you undertake the former without the latter, the government would be under no obligation to treat your 'church marriage' any differently than it treats the religious marriages of modern day polygamists. 

 

 

Quote

How does changing the policy now buy the church anything or protect it from any potential dystopian future? They could have done so immediately after (in the dystopian future) the first amendment was abolished. Policies can be changed nearly instantaneously if needed.

I really just chimed in to add my comments about the 'churches will never be excluded from legally marrying people' debate.

I've got no idea why the church decided to change it's policy now. And, if I'm being brutally honest, I really don't care.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Gray said:

I mean that religions in the US have broad freedom to discriminate, even in ways most would find shocking. It would be shocking for a church today for example to refuse to baptize or marry short people, or black people, or veterans. But they could do it without any risk of government intervention.

Similarly, religions are free to discriminate based on religion. Indeed, most do. This would fall on the not shocking end of the spectrum. Churches refusing to perform same sex marriage is something I disagree with, but it's fairly common and not shocking. There is no danger of them ever being forced to do so.

Equal protection laws do not apply to churches when they are acting as churches. Therefore the church's recent change in policy has no effect on future risk.

"Discriminate" is the virtual linguistic twin of "discern."  Its primary meaning historically and presently has to do with being able to make distinctions between things.  "You have disciminating taste in draperies, Mrs Schwartz!"  You are using "discriminate" in its tertiary meaning having but a very few decades' currency as a specialized sociopolitical weapon word in applying it to religious institutions.  In Mormonese, "to discern" is a special spiritual talent given as a gift by G-d to certain individuals.   See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of

While you are largely correct in a very limited legal sphere that states and nation states have had the tendency to make certain activities in the financial marketplace illegal:  some choices [which is what discrimination really is] are prohibited and/or bear a social or legal onus.  This is all, however, in a sphere wholly separated from religious institutions and religious individuals' inner life and religious practices.  The state has no business there, and its specialized vocabulary is unuseful in discussing such matters.

Moreover, "equal protection" is likewise wholly irrelevant, as the contours of when it comes into play is in the sphere of, for example, employment law, as the Deseret Gym's long gone policy on requiring its employees, all of them, to be endowed temple recommend holders.  The Court found that there is no reasonable connection between being an endowed temple recommend holder and mopping up.  Now, of course, this court case ended up a contributing factor in the Deseret Gym becoming a bath house, in the worst sense of that term, back in the '70s/early '80s, but that court wasn't concerned with a Church's concerns for the patrons of its facilities' safety and wellbeing.  Quare:  what would today's SCOTUS make of that case?

Now, if a legal ruling helps turn a Church facility into a homosexual hookup joint by accident, how are we to trust that an unfriendly judiciary (and there are plenty of antireligionist judges out there) coupled with antiMormon virulence expressed by legal attacks (and there are plenty of antiMormons, antiMormon virulence, and antiMormon legal attacks out there, and more expected every week), how are we to trust a judiciary whose rulings WRT religious liberties seem to change with this season's politics?  I don't believe you when you say "there's no danger" that the abomination of desolation won't be forced through our temples' doors and into our temples' sealing rooms and onto our temples' altars.  My liberties are constantly in jeopardy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Gray said:

This is what the incel kids today call "being a snowflake." No one is throwing bombs.

And yet, there you are throwing bombs.  Interesting.

Quote

"Discriminate" is a perfectly cromulent word.

D'oh!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

Let's say worst case scenario it did. The first amendment is abolished, dogs and cats living together, etc. How does changing the policy now buy the church anything or protect it from any potential dystopian future? They could have done so immediately after (in the dystopian future) the first amendment was abolished. Policies can be changed nearly instantaneously if needed.

Leaving out the straw man that this would only ever happen in a dystopian future, I don't know if anyone has argued that changing the policy now protects the church from anything.  I could have missed it because I wasn't paying that close of attention but I thought that the only point made was that if that happened, the church would already be set up to easily handle it without having to decide or make any changes after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...