Temple wedding policies

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

As would a nice church wedding with all the family and friends in attendance.

Which was actually the original LDS requirement per section 101 of the 1835 D&C. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think it is much less a issue of which religion is performing the service and more of an issue of it being open to the public or not.

Refusing to recognize the marriages a church performs unless said marriages are open to the public strikes me as limiting the free exercise of religion. But maybe I'm spoiled from having been a U.S. citizen all my life.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Which was actually the original LDS requirement per section 101 of the 1835 D&C. 

So let's do away with all scripture and doctrine that has come forth since 1835 and get back to doing things the way they were done then.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So let's do away with all scripture and doctrine that has come forth since 1835 and get back to doing things the way they were done then.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

You are misunderstanding me.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are misunderstanding me.

So are you saying that the 1835 D&C 101 takes precedence over subsequent revelation or what? 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Which was actually the original LDS requirement per section 101 of the 1835 D&C. 

I don't think you can have it both ways. Oliver Cowdery wrote this to distance the Church from polygamy. It was a PR/spin section, and was removed when polygamy was in the open. 

It's an embarrassing section because of this (I don't think anyone argues that Cowdery was unaware of polygamy, or at least what he perceived to be Joseph's bigamy), but, you can't turn around and use this section to represent the actual teaching and practice of marriage for all members. Especially not those violating it.  

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So are you saying that the 1835 D&C 101 takes precedence over subsequent revelation or what? 

 

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think you can have it both ways. Oliver Cowdery wrote this to distance the Church from polygamy. It was a PR/spin section, and was removed when polygamy was in the open. 

It's an embarrassing section because of this (I don't think anyone argues that Cowdery was unaware of polygamy, or at least what he perceived to be Joseph's bigamy), but, you can't turn around and use this section to represent the actual teaching and practice of marriage for all members. Especially not those violating it.  

 

I was just pointing out that I thought it was interesting that the UK policy requiring marriages to be solemnized in public aligns with the original LDS Church policy.  I agree that the 1835 Section 101 isn't relevant today - for a number of reasons.

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was just pointing out that I thought it was interesting that the UK policy requiring marriages to be solemnized in public aligns with the original LDS Church policy.  I agree that the 1835 Section 101 isn't relevant today - for a number of reasons.

I know, and point taken. But, it isn't fair or accurate to call that "original LDS Church policy." Section 101 was a subterfuge (which is embarrassing). 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I know, and point taken. But, it isn't fair or accurate to call that "original LDS Church policy." Section 101 was a subterfuge (which is embarrassing). 

I've never heard the original D&C section 101 called a "subterfuge". You may be right, but it was canonized subterfuge. It was scripture that lasted in the D&C for over 40 years. We just can't trust those pesky scriptures, can we?

 

[bsjkki]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've never heard the original D&C section 101 called a "subterfuge". You may be right, but it was canonized subterfuge. It was scripture that lasted in the D&C for over 40 years. We just can't trust those pesky scriptures, can we?

 

I would definitely call section 101 part of the history of lds marriage policies. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Refusing to recognize the marriages a church performs unless said marriages are open to the public strikes me as limiting the free exercise of religion. But maybe I'm spoiled from having been a U.S. citizen all my life.

 

Since a marriage is a concern of the greater community, I see no problem with requiring it to potentially be witnessed by that greater community.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Refusing to recognize the marriages a church performs unless said marriages are open to the public strikes me as limiting the free exercise of religion. But maybe I'm spoiled from having been a U.S. citizen all my life.

 

I would tend to agree.  I don't see what private or public service has to do with it.  But I really don't have insight into what the motivation is for of some of the foreign governments laws.

[bsjkki]

Many European countries only recognize civil marriages...more than I thought. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Russia. These governments do not recognize the religious ceremony. https://www.ncronline.org/news/global/european-countries-distinguish-between-religious-civil-marriages

"In countries with a harmonious tradition of church-state separation, the state acts in agreement with the church to regulate marriages," Msgr. Piotr Mazurkiewicz, a Polish church expert, told CNS.

"In others, however, where church-state ties are traditionally hostile, they act quite separately. But there's been a modus vivendi here too -- although marriage laws make no mention of churches, it's recognized that churches exist and conduct their own ceremonies."

Edited May 23, 2017 by bsjkki

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Since a marriage is a concern of the greater community, I see no problem with requiring it to potentially be witnessed by that greater community.

It's still not self-evident to me that a "greater community" needs to be permitted to attend a marriage ceremony for the state to recognize it as valid. I am in the "greater community" and I have zero interest in attending any but the tiniest fraction of marriages that occur. So long as the person conducting the marriage is properly licensed by the state, I'm content.

I don't see what theoretical purpose is served by the state guaranteeing public access -- including, presumably, strangers and even hostile persons -- to a couple's marriage ceremony.

Edited to add: To use argumentum ad absurdum, we don't require that "the greater community" be permitted to witness the birth of a baby for the birth certificate to be regarded as valid. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

There are unlikely to be reasons to stop the birth of a baby as there might be reason to interfere with a wedding...such as a previous marriage or infidelity or one of the couple is a criminal.  And nowadays there is much less community involvement in helping new families get a start so it may seem meaningless to those lacking the heritage.  Culture has changed due to greater ease of information, more movement among communities, less ties to your own local community, so past reasons for public weddings may not be as strong, but that doesn't mean they were never important and don't have cultural significance that should be ignored now.

Heritage , tradition in ceremonies is often what gives them the most meaning.  It seems to me as inappropriate to dismiss one culture's desire for the tradition of public weddings as it is for nonmembers to dismiss the importance of temple weddings for Mormons.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are unlikely to be reasons to stop the birth of a baby as there might be reason to interfere with a wedding...

No one would have a legitimate reason to prevent the birth of a baby. But we've seen with the last U.S. presidential administration at least one instance in which the public conceivably has a legitimate interest in the validity of a birth certificate.

Quote

... such as a previous marriage or infidelity or one of the couple is a criminal.

Why is it necessary that the general public be guaranteed admittance to a marriage ceremony for such things to be detected and brought to light?

 

Quote

 

 And nowadays there is much less community involvement in helping new families get a start so it may seem meaningless to those lacking the heritage.  Culture has changed due to greater ease of information, more movement among communities, less ties to your own local community, so past reasons for public weddings may not be as strong, but that doesn't mean they were never important and don't have cultural significance that should be ignored now.

 

The above only supports the argument that this centuries-old custom has long ago outlived whatever purpose it may have had. "Helping new families get a start" presumably is one reason for inviting a list of people with whom the couple is well acquainted, not for making the wedding a public venue where anyone, including strangers, can show up.

Quote

Heritage , tradition in ceremonies is often what gives them the most meaning.  It seems to me as inappropriate to dismiss one culture's desire for the tradition of public weddings as it is for nonmembers to dismiss the importance of temple weddings for Mormons.

If a couple, for the sake of culture, tradition, heritage or for some other reason, desires to have a wedding ceremony that is thrown open to any and all comers, by all means grant them the right to do so. But why mandate it for everyone with the force of law behind the mandate?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a couple, for the sake of culture or tradition or for some other reason, desires to have a wedding ceremony that is thrown open to any and all comers, by all means grant them the right to do so. But why mandate it for everyone with the force of law behind the mandate?

Because law is a formal expression of shared values?

I have zero concerns with other nations mandating that marriages be public as an expression of their values. That respect on my part certainly extends to allowing LDS values to be clearly expressed in Church policies.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because law is a formal expression of shared values?

 

Not all shared values ought to be mandated by law. Some should be observed voluntarily as they are transmitted and sustained by persuasion rather than coercion.

Quote

I have zero concerns with other nations mandating that marriages be public as an expression of their values. That respect on my part certainly extends to allowing LDS values to be clearly expressed in Church policies.

LDS values are an apt example for our discussion. Should all LDS values be mandated by the law of the land? What about the Word of Wisdom? Tithe paying? LDS elements of Sabbath day observance? The law of chastity? Modesty in dress? Avoidance of tattoos and limitation of piercings to one set of earrings for women?

Don't worry, as a U.S. citizen, I'm not going to be interfering in the internal affairs of other nations to the point that I agitate for them to change their laws with regard to requiring a civil ceremony for all marriages. But one ought to feel free to discuss the matter academically as a matter of principle, the way citizens of other nations presumably discuss from time to time the laws in the United States.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not all shared values ought to be mandated by law.

Agreed. But it should be up to each nation to decide which are and which aren't.

Quote

Should all LDS values be mandated by the law of the land?

I think a more parallel question would be, 'Should all LDS values be mandated by Church policies?' To which I suspect most people, including Church leaders, would respond in the negative. But the Church is certainly within its rights to decide which of its values are sufficiently central that they should be mandated in policy.

I think Calm was spot-on when she suggested that respect is a two-way street on this topic. If I lived in a land that only recognises public marriages (and if I were getting married!), I would cheerfully swing by a registrar's office for a 15-minute civil ceremony on my way to a temple for the real deal.

Where I live, the national government places mandates on religious celebrants, including temple sealers. At the end of the ordinance, a temple worker enters the sealing room carrying a small table with all the necessary paperwork on it. This has to be completed and signed in the presence of all those who've witnessed the marriage. It takes several minutes and feels like something of an intrusion, but when this obligation is fulfilled, the table is whisked away, the couple are invited to exchange rings, and everyone queues up to joyfully congratulate them. We believe in being good citizens, and, thankfully!, we can make that work within the framework of being good Saints almost all of the time.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Agreed. But it should be up to each nation to decide which are and which aren't.

I've not disputed an individual nation's right to make that determination for itself.

Quote

I think a more parallel question would be, 'Should all LDS values be mandated by Church policies?' To which I suspect most people, including Church leaders, would respond in the negative. But the Church is certainly within its rights to decide which of its values are sufficiently central that they should be mandated in policy.

I disagree that it's more parallel or that it's even relevant. Religious requirements -- at least those within the Church of Jesus Christ -- are unlike the laws of a state or nation, which carry penalties that potentially include fines, loss of freedom, even loss of life. Strictly speaking, anything that is required in the Church is voluntary. The harshest penalty the Church can impose is deprivation of membership.

Quote

 

I think Calm was spot-on when she suggested that respect is a two-way street on this topic. If I lived in a land that only recognises public marriages (and if I were getting married!), I would cheerfully swing by a registrar's office for a 15-minute civil ceremony on my way to a temple for the real deal.

 

I disagree that it is showing disrespect to suggest that a specific cultural tradition or custom ought to be sustained and carried forward by persuasion and socialization rather than coerced with the force of law.

Quote

Where I live, the national government places mandates on religious celebrants, including temple sealers. At the end of the ordinance, a temple worker enters the sealing room carrying a small table with all the necessary paperwork on it. This has to be completed and signed in the presence of all those who've witnessed the marriage. It takes several minutes and feels like something of an intrusion, but when this obligation is fulfilled, the table is whisked away, the couple are invited to exchange rings, and everyone queues up to joyfully congratulate them. We believe in being good citizens, and, thankfully!, we can make that work within the framework of being good Saints almost all of the time.

This is as it should be (and is not wholly unlike what happens where I live). I have already allowed that the state has a perfect and legitimate right to impose requirements upon individuals, whoever they might be, whom it authorizes to perform marriages and have them legally recognized by the state.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:30 PM, bluebell said:

Based on the handbook from the 1960s that explains the implementation of the policy, i think it exists because the Brethren (at the time and apparently now, though it could change) believe that purposefully rejecting a blessing from God by choosing to have a civil marriage instead, illustrates a flaw in understanding/sincerity/testimony that needs time to change.

Here is the relevant quote-

“Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing.”

Thank you. The quote confirms my thoughts. It is all about control.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you. The quote confirms my thoughts. It is all about control.

It is interesting how all of us process/interpret things differently.   

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you. The quote confirms my thoughts. It is all about control.

If one partner was suggesting having sex before marriage and the other told the first partner that they wanted to wait to have sex after marriage to demonstrate sincerity about wanting to be married, commitment to marriage, and worthiness to be married, would you automatically think that second partner was "all about control"?

My view...it might indeed be all about control, it might have nothing to do with control, it might be in part about control...my guess is the last in that the Church is concerned about setting boundaries for its members (word of wisdom for example) and that does manifest as control, but I see it more like a loving parent controlling situations in their child's life to both push them to grow and protect them from too much too soon.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one partner was suggesting having sex before marriage and the other told the first partner that they wanted to wait to have sex after marriage to demonstrate sincerity about wanting to be married, commitment to marriage, and worthiness to be married, would you automatically think that second partner was "all about control".

That comparison was embarrassingly beneath you.  Equating pre-marital sex with a couple's desire to have all loved one's in attendance is really poor form.

Edited May 23, 2017 by ttribe

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one partner was suggesting having sex before marriage and the other told the first partner that they wanted to wait to have sex after marriage to demonstrate sincerity about wanting to be married, commitment to marriage, and worthiness to be married, would you automatically think that second partner was "all about control"?

My view...it might indeed be all about control, it might have nothing to do with control, it might be in part about control...my guess is the last in that the Church is concerned about setting boundaries for its members (word of wisdom for example) and that does manifest as control, but I see it more like a loving parent controlling situations in their child's life to both push them to grow and protect them from too much too soon.

 

 

I have said nothing about the LDS worthiness standards.  I have focused on the issue that seems to be increasing, about part member families, families that may have LDS members not active, etc to be able to participate in a life events that should be joyous and inclusive.

If a couple is temple worthy but they opt for a "civil" marriage so they can include their loved ones who may not be able to attend a temple sealing why the punitive year long wait?  It is nonsensical and demonstrates that the LDS Church wants power and control over its members in such things.  Honestly this is a cult like behavior IMO.