Is The Church Changing Its Temple/civil Marriage Policy?

[BlueDreams]

I know I am not a regular poster here, but have lurked off and on for some time.  I do have one observation on any potential church policy change on civil/temple marriage timing.

 

I know the lead attorney the church has used on much of its marriage equality issues (i.e., prop 8, recent hawaii legislation, etc.).  Definitely an insider and pro church policy.  It is his opinion that it is inevitable that marriage equality will ultimately be pushed through in every state and that the church will respond by revising its church wide policy provide civil marriage first with temple sealing to follow.  Similar to the UK policy.

 

He didnt' elaborate on why he thought this change marriage equality across the country would ultimately bring the church to changing this policy.  Could it be for fear of litigation?  That doesn't sound reasonable to me.  How could they be forced to performed gay marriages in the temple?  I don't see the precedent.

 

However, that insider felt extremely confident this is where the church would be ending up.

 

I don't think it would actually happen ever. But it does remove the possibility by separating out civil marriage from the sealing ordinance done in the temple...I'd assume that would be why.  

 

Generally I prefer concrete evidence than hearsay in either case though. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Grudunza]

Maybe we should wait to see if there actually is a change?

Just sayin'.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Grudunza

[KevinG]

There have always been exceptions granted for special circumstances.  People who had to travel long distances to reach a temple, and in my case we weren't members for a full year when we got married, so we went to the temple only a few months after our marriage but after a year from our baptism.

[Buckeye]

There have always been exceptions granted for special circumstances.  People who had to travel long distances to reach a temple, and in my case we weren't members for a full year when we got married, so we went to the temple only a few months after our marriage but after a year from our baptism.

 

Can you offer any help with President Lee's statements?  What blessings have you not enjoyed that have been enjoyed by those who were married in temple at the same time they were sealed?

[Darren10]

Considering the source, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually were tightening the policy. 

 

[Darren10]

It hasn't always been the case. My grandparents were married on the East Coast - in 1964 - and then made the long trek to Salt Lake City to be sealed about two weeks later. And I certainly don't think it diminished the ordinance for them at all.

 

i think the trek made the sealing very meaningful. If there's a temple in town, however, I agree that having a civil ceremony / festive celebration and then go to the temple nearby does diminish the sacredness of the sealing.

 

Now, your avatar is not manly enough. THIS is Gohan SS2:

 

 

Now that's one dude I wouldn't want to mess with.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Darren10

[KevinG]

Can you offer any help with President Lee's statements?  What blessings have you not enjoyed that have been enjoyed by those who were married in temple at the same time they were sealed?

 

Our circumstance was not because we weren't worthy, and not because we didn't want to sacrifice or obey to become worthy.

 

Even given that:  there was never a certainty that our marriage and family were bonded eternally to our Father in Heavens family until we attended the temple. Our chapel wedding was not the equivalent of temple sealing in any way.  I think pretending "till death do us part" or "for time only" provides blessings similar to "time and all eternity" or the sublime spiritual experience of a temple ceremony does us a disservice.

 

I repented of things and was washed clean of my sins upon my baptism, yet I will always remember the uncertainty of my place in life and the eternities, the guilt of my sins, that I could not fully understand until I covenanted with Christ.  Had I lived the laws of the Gospel earlier in my young life I could have been spared the worry and guilt and unsettled spirit I experienced.

 

Similarly if we had been able to attend the Temple earlier we would have had the assurances, blessings and confidence we did not receive on our nice but non-temple wedding.  Telestial glory just isn't quite as wonderful as the hope of Celestial glory.

 

Hard to describe I fear.  But the distinction is meaningful and felt by me.

Edited February 6, 2014 by KevinG

[Gohan]

i think the trek made the sealing very meaningful. If there's a temple in town, however, I agree that having a civil ceremony / festive celebration and then go to the temple nearby does diminish the sacredness of the sealing.

 

Now, your avatar is not manly enough. THIS is Gohan SS2:

 

[iMAGE]

 

Now that;s one dude I wouldn't want ot mess with.

HA! It's ironic, I shortened my username to Gohan when I signed up here back in '05. Before then it actually was ss2gohan. Now on most other boards, I go by either Warrior.Zelph(X-Box) or my actual name.

 

And I agree with the trek making it very meaningful. My great-grandparents - different side of the family - did the same thing in the 1950s, North Carolina to Idaho, and my grandma and her siblings still discuss that journey frequently.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Gohan

[Damien the Leper]

I like that there is no state religion and there will never be one in the US. Churches need to get out of the civil marriage business and stick with covenantal partnerships.

[Buckeye]

Our circumstance was not because we weren't worthy, and not because we didn't want to sacrifice or obey to become worthy.

 

Even given that:  there was never a certainty that our marriage and family were bonded eternally to our Father in Heavens family until we attended the temple. Our chapel wedding was not the equivalent of temple sealing in any way.  I think pretending "till death do us part" or "for time only" provides blessings similar to "time and all eternity" or the sublime spiritual experience of a temple ceremony does us a disservice.

 

I repented of things and was washed clean of my sins upon my baptism, yet I will always remember the uncertainty of my place in life and the eternities, the guilt of my sins, that I could not fully understand until I covenanted with Christ.  Had I lived the laws of the Gospel earlier in my young life I could have been spared the worry and guilt and unsettled spirit I experienced.

 

Similarly if we had been able to attend the Temple earlier we would have had the assurances, blessings and confidence we did not receive on our nice but non-temple wedding.  Telestial glory just isn't quite as wonderful as the hope of Celestial glory.

 

Hard to describe I fear.  But the distinction is meaningful and felt by me.

 

Thanks.  I wasn't meaning to suggest anything about worthiness.  Sorry if it came out that way.  In President Lee's remarks, he referred to blessings that will be missed by a couple that is civily wed and soon there after sealed, even if there is no worthiness concern.  I'm still trying to figure out what the missed blessings are.  I can see the lack of certainty during the interlude between the two events.  But again, considering our belief that work can be done after death, I don't understand how that can be much of a fear. 

[KevinG]

I like that there is no state religion and there will never be one in the US. Churches need to get out of the civil marriage business and stick with covenantal partnerships.

 

I would prefer that solution to the current debates.  Each church can do whatever they want about defining and carrying out marriages.  Meanwhile if you want partner benefits from the state you walk in with your marriage license or another affidavit of intent and apply for legal partner benefits.  Church stays church, state stays state. 

[DJBrown]

I know I am not a regular poster here, but have lurked off and on for some time.  I do have one observation on any potential church policy change on civil/temple marriage timing.

 

I know the lead attorney the church has used on much of its marriage equality issues (i.e., prop 8, recent hawaii legislation, etc.).  Definitely an insider and pro church policy.  It is his opinion that it is inevitable that marriage equality will ultimately be pushed through in every state and that the church will respond by revising its church wide policy provide civil marriage first with temple sealing to follow.  Similar to the UK policy.

 

He didnt' elaborate on why he thought this change marriage equality across the country would ultimately bring the church to changing this policy.  Could it be for fear of litigation?  That doesn't sound reasonable to me.  How could they be forced to performed gay marriages in the temple?  I don't see the precedent.

 

However, that insider felt extremely confident this is where the church would be ending up.

 

I think that there could be tax and legal implications for the church and its members.  Can you imagine the impact if the church had to start paying corporate tax in the U.S.?  Or if its members lost the ability to write off its donations? I think this may be inevitable for us.  But this change in policy would buy some time and space and protect against suits of discrimination. 

[KevinG]

Thanks.  I wasn't meaning to suggest anything about worthiness.  Sorry if it came out that way.  In President Lee's remarks, he referred to blessings that will be missed by a couple that is civily wed and soon there after sealed, even if there is no worthiness concern.  I'm still trying to figure out what the missed blessings are.  I can see the lack of certainty during the interlude between the two events.  But again, considering our belief that work can be done after death, I don't understand how that can be much of a fear. 

 

No problem I was setting context, not accusing you of accusing me.  

 

I think the intent of those who delay is a big factor in the feelings that follow...

[Buckeye]

Another implication to consider. Most LDS I know would want to be civily married by an LDS official. Current church policy limits that function to bishops (and maybe higher?). Coordinating weddings can sap a lot of time, which would be a burden on already strapped bishops. Thus, I imagine a policy change would accompany this to allow counselors and perhaps former bishops to also perform civil ceremonies. Just a thought.

[Buckeye]

No problem I was setting context, not accusing you of accusing me.  

 

I think the intent of those who delay is a big factor in the feelings that follow...

 

I'm with you there.  It's just that, in my experience, most people who express a desire for civil marriage before sealing do so from an intention of including family that cannot go to the temple (in my case many younger siblings).  It's not a desire to delay the covenants or blessings of the temple.  In fact, were the policy changed, most people would be sealed within a day or two of the civil ceremony because all of the family/friends are already in town. 

 

So I don't think President Lee was impunging the intentions of members who want separate ceremonies.  I think he sincerely thought that separate ceremonies are somehow inferior (missed blessings), but I can't figure out why.  For me, it would have meant greater blessings. 

[escott3564]

It would be about time. It's nice to have the convenience of both together at once, (even with nonmember family members, I still would have chosen to do them both together) but I don't like the necessary conflation of a government contract with a Sacred Church Ordinance.

 

My daughter got married 2 years ago.  Her spouse's family are not Church members.  They got sealed by my daughter's Grandpa in the morning, and then had a reception/ring ceremony later that afternoon with the traditional bridesmaid and groomsman lines, and her Dad and I walking her down the aisle.  Our Ward Bishop conducted the ring ceremony, and my daughter and her new husband exchanged their own vows they had written.

 

My son in law's parents felt very included and got to be a part of everything.  I don't see why the Church can't encourage more situations like this.  I know that currently in the handbook, bishops are counseled to "downplay" the ring ceremony, but what is wrong with having a celebration?  The couple is ALREADY married and sealed.  What is the big deal?

 

As a Mom, I have to say, I really enjoyed BOTH ceremonies.  I cried at both of them.  LOL  My daughter's grandpa (my father in law) was the temple president, so it was neat that he was able to seal them.

 

The other ceremony and reception which happened later was also wonderful.  It was the best of both worlds, as far as I was concerned.

[thatjimguy]

I've heard that this was posted by John Dehlin on his Facebook page:  

 

"Possibly wonderful news! I just heard 2nd-hand that '...some major changes were coming concerning temple marriages and allowing people to have a civil ceremony and then later go to the temple to be sealed.' Can anyone confirm?"

 

Does anyone know anything about this?  

 

 

I thought this was already the case. When was this ever not allowed?

[Darren10]

And I agree with the trek making it very meaningful. My great-grandparents - different side of the family - did the same thing in the 1950s, North Carolina to Idaho, and my grandma and her siblings still discuss that journey frequently.

 

Thats really cool!!!

[Darren10]

My son in law's parents felt very included and got to be a part of everything.  I don't see why the Church can't encourage more situations like this.  I know that currently in the handbook, bishops are counseled to "downplay" the ring ceremony, but what is wrong with having a celebration?  The couple is ALREADY married and sealed.  What is the big deal?

 

 

While I'm not a "radical" supporter of temple marriage /sealings only, I do see the advantage of keeping the conversations of a temple wedding on the sealing nature of the family. If you think about the essenciality of a tempe sealing, by downplaying a civil ceremony, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially supports keeping the conversations and emphasis on the exaltation of man.

[Darren10]

I like that there is no state religion and there will never be one in the US. Churches need to get out of the civil marriage business and stick with covenantal partnerships.

 

Oh, I think the establishment of a state religion on the federal level is well on its way. And fundamentally I would like to see the federal government out of marriage completely but that's not going to happen.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Darren10

[ALarson]

I thought this was already the case. When was this ever not allowed?

There is a waiting period of a year right now (if someone chooses to get married civilly first, then they have to wait a year to get sealed in the temple).  This change would allow a civil wedding followed shortly by a temple sealing with no waiting period.

[Daniel2]

Oh, I think the establishment of a state religion on the federal level is well on its way. And fundamentally I would like to see the federal government out of marriage completely but that's not going to happen.

Some legislators in Oklahoma are considering just that:

Oklahoma Lawmakers Consider Banning All Marriages to Prevent Gay Marriage in State

http://m.christianpost.com/news/oklahoma-lawmakers-consider-banning-all-marriages-to-prevent-gay-marriage-in-state--113419/

By Leonardo Blair

January 27, 2014 | 12:35 pm

Less than two weeks after a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a voter-sanctioned Oklahoma law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between heterosexual couples, state lawmakers are now considering banning all marriages to keep gay marriage illegal in the state.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmund) who filed a bill seeking to ban all marriages in the state, according to News 9.

Turner said he also has the support of other conservative lawmakers.

When asked if he thought the idea was a realistic proposition, Turner said it would be a "realistic opportunity."

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," said Turner.

In a Jan. 14 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern said the court would not enforce the decision that gave homosexuals the right to marry in Oklahoma until the appeals process is complete. He was, however, very clear about the 2004 amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that made it illegal for gays to marry.

"The Court holds that Oklahoma's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote Kern in his decision while pointing out that protection "is at the very heart of our legal system," according to a CNN report.

Kern noted that "Part A" of the Oklahoma Constitutional amendment that says, "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." That definition he said revealed "irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a government benefit," because it "purposefully (drew a line) between two groups of Oklahoma citizens — same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license and opposite-sex couples desiring (a) marriage license."

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU office in Oklahoma said the push by conservative lawmakers reflects how out of touch they are with their constituents and dismissed the bill as politics.

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

"Moving forward I think we'll see less efforts like this," added Kiesel.

Turner explained that he is also waiting on the decision on the ruling from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals before making his next move.

Reactions to the proposal have been met with scorn and derision on social media such as Facebook.

"Wow Mike Turner is really living on the edge. Maybe he needs to move to the backwoods where he evidently came from (or stick to his engineering background instead of public policy). The era of marriage equality is here and if you don't like it you can just move out there with him. The rest of us will enjoy the progress and prosperity that can only come from social tolerance and acceptance of your neighbor's right to live the way s/he chooses," wrote Robert Gallimore.

According to Ronda Stauch Hjorth, however, "Marriage is being mocked by the definition that some are giving it. Marriage is a spiritual covenant between a man and a woman. The government doesn't really need to be involved at all."

[thatjimguy]

Some legislators in Oklahoma are considering just that:

 

 

Yow, that goes right against our doctrine of freedom ya? I always thought that the reason for the Book of Mormon was needed is because of the possibility to force everyone to believe in the Bible and follow Jesus. The BoM teaches freedom. It's funny how some would think that Jesus would condone this idea.

Edited February 7, 2014 by thatjimguy

[omni]

If this is indeed true, then kudos to the church! Thank you (in advance) for putting families first!

[escott3564]

While I'm not a "radical" supporter of temple marriage /sealings only, I do see the advantage of keeping the conversations of a temple wedding on the sealing nature of the family. If you think about the essenciality of a tempe sealing, by downplaying a civil ceremony, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially supports keeping the conversations and emphasis on the exaltation of man.

The temple sealing is not going to lose its significance for those who are involved and who understand the importance of the temple.  However, I think it is unfair for non-member families to be shut out of celebration of the couple, particularly when it is a sensitive situation of part-member families involved.  My daughter and son-in-law were very touched by the spirit, and strongly realized the significance of their temple sealing.  Nothing could ever change that.   The Church needs to trust in its own sealing doctrine.