At home sacrament

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Interesting. So if a person in your ward wanted to get married at a reception center, for example, that is not within the ward boundaries, the Bishop could not do that?
I don't see that in the Handbook. 
 

Your sentence/question was very poorly structured.  What does people getting married have to do with what a bishop can do?  

The point being made was that a bishop (of a ward) is the bishop of only that ward.  Not a bishop of other wards when serving as a bishop of a particular ward.

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your sentence/question was very poorly structured.  What does people getting married have to do with what a bishop can do?  

The point being made was that a bishop (of a ward) is the bishop of only that ward.  Not a bishop of other wards when serving as a bishop of a particular ward.

I was responding to mfbukowski's post where he said that he received a letter that he was a Bishop only in his ward boundaries and so as a Bishop could only perform weddings within his ward boundaries and not at a beach or a mountain top ets.  I was just wondering if that also included a place like a reception center that was not in his ward boundaries. 
 

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting. So if a person in your ward wanted to get married at a reception center, for example, that is not within the ward boundaries, the Bishop could not do that?
I don't see that in the Handbook. 
 

The answer is "yes".

I have not been a bishop now for over 10 years so perhaps the policy has changed- I really don't know.

The letter came out, and leadership was trained about that point.  It was a fairly a big deal.   I have no idea if the policy is still enforced, I am just telling you my personal experience.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, JAHS said:

I was responding to mfbukowski's post where he said that he received a letter that he was a Bishop only in his ward boundaries and so as a Bishop could only perform weddings within his ward boundaries and not at a beach or a mountain top ets.  I was just wondering if that also included a place like a reception center that was not in his ward boundaries. 
 

Yes it would have included the reception center in your scenario

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Ahab said:

Your sentence/question was very poorly structured.  What does people getting married have to do with what a bishop can do?  

The point being made was that a bishop (of a ward) is the bishop of only that ward.  Not a bishop of other wards when serving as a bishop of a particular ward.

You missed the point.  Bishops marry people.

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/20/2020 at 10:56 PM, provoman said:

I know the First Presidency has left the decision to allow at home sacrament to local leadership; however, I have wondered why the First Presidency would leave the decision to local leadership.

I have thought about this because of the various opinions and precautions that individuals take. I have read "internet" accounts on other message boards about people who feel "forced" to attend in person church because local leadership does not permit at home sacrament.   

I think it's due to covid and it's different rates in different areas, POTUS telling the states that they're in charge of thier jurisdictions (perhaps due to diferent geography, demographics, health status, etc.). 

The most beautiful thing I've learned from church at home is how much I don't need to meet with my regular ward, in person, face to face, weekly or more often. The Spirit confirms truth to 2 people, same as 20 or 200

[Ahab]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

I was responding to mfbukowski's post where he said that he received a letter that he was a Bishop only in his ward boundaries and so as a Bishop could only perform weddings within his ward boundaries and not at a beach or a mountain top ets.  I was just wondering if that also included a place like a reception center that was not in his ward boundaries. 
 

The key is the phrase "as a Bishop".  Pretty much any man (or woman) can get authorization from a state or local jurisdiction to administer a wedding ceremony which will be recognized as valid in that area and pretty much all over the world, but a bishop serves as a bishop only in the ward in which he is authorized to serve as a bishop.   So if a man who is a bishop of a ward wants to administer a wedding ceremony in some place outside of that ward he would be authorized to do so only as a man with that authority from the state or local jurisdiction, but not as the bishop of that area outside of his ward.

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The answer is "yes".

I have not been a bishop now for over 10 years so perhaps the policy has changed- I really don't know.

The letter came out, and leadership was trained about that point.  It was a fairly a big deal.   I have no idea if the policy is still enforced, I am just telling you my personal experience.

This doesn't sound right.  That would mean bishops with reception centers (or wedding chapels or event centers or whatever you want to call them) within their ward boundaries would be called upon to marry people who are not members of their ward.  It sounds unreasonable to ask bishops to perform weddings for people who are not members of his ward. 

The current handbook reads as follows in 38.3.2

"Church officers may not perform marriages for Church members when neither marriage partner belongs to the Church unit over which the officer presides."

I can't find any mention of marriages performed outside of ward boundaries.  It recommend the chapel or a home, but doesn't preclude other locations or specify that the home lie within the ward boundaries.

I don't have a past copy of handbook 1 to refer to and have not served as a bishop, but I've served as a counselor to two bishops in the past and was fairly familiar with handbook 1.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it would have included the reception center in your scenario

I did a little searching and I think nowadays as long as one of the persons getting married is a member of the Bishop's ward he can perform the ceremony anywhere. If neither one of the couple is a member of the Bishop's ward then First Presidency approval is needed. 

"Civil marriages are preferably performed in the home of a family member or in a Church building. Marriages in a Church building may be performed in the chapel, the cultural hall, or another suitable room. If the marriage will be performed by a priesthood leader but not in a home or a Church building, the priesthood leader approves the location after consulting with the couple."
"Church officers may not perform marriages for Church members when neither marriage partner belongs to the Church unit over which the officer presides. An exception is made for Latter-day Saint chaplains. Any other exceptions require the approval of the First Presidency in each case." (Church Handbook)

Interesting that it also says: "Authorized Church officers may perform marriages for nonmembers without receiving special approval."

 

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This doesn't sound right.  That would mean bishops with reception centers (or wedding chapels or event centers or whatever you want to call them) within their ward boundaries would be called upon to marry people who are not members of their ward.  It sounds unreasonable to ask bishops to perform weddings for people who are not members of his ward. 

Good post, thanks, but this portion doesn't fit.

The policy as we were trained was that the LOCATION of the marriage could not be outside ward boundaries- not that we could marry people who were not ward members.

I remember because in one instance I had a couple who wanted to be married outside ward boundaries - the sister was a ward member and the brother was a non-member investigator who later joined the church- which was fine with me, but I was told I could not do the wedding because the venue was outside the ward boundaries.

It was kind of a big deal because they actually changed the venue to the bride's home so that I could do the ceremony.   I always thought the policy was weird, so maybe it was a misunderstanding within the stake, and maybe the letter I remember was from the SP and not SLC.

The point was that when one was not within the boundaries one was no longer had any authority from the church.  Perhaps that idea got twisted into a kind of invisible wall beyond which one's authority did not exist.   Again- semantic confusion.

But that couple incredibly decided they still wanted me to do it and were willing to change their plans for little old me!!  That's one of the reasons I remember it so clearly.

One of my dear friends was just released from regional calling- maybe I will call him

[Hamba Tuhan]

Mate, until 13 months ago, our chapel wasn’t even within our ward boundaries. Your stake totally made this up. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, until 13 months ago, our chapel wasn’t even within our ward boundaries. Your stake totally made this up. 

I just texted my current SP and he quoted the current Handbook and it appears that you are right.

Now I am really riled up on this!    I know all the previous SP's personally of course- so I am going to start doing a little interviewing to figure out why I could not do that wedding.

And I am digging through stuff to find that letter!!

OK all I apologize- clearly I was mistaken!!  I always thought it was pretty weird, but now I have to get to the bottom of this!  🤨

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

OK all I apologize- clearly I was mistaken!!  I always thought it was pretty weird, but now I have to get to the bottom of this!  🤨

Is it possible someone felt the appeal of beach, mountain, or other settings were leading some to put off marrying in the temple?  If one wasn’t solid on a desire to be married in the temple, I can see how being able to be married in such settings would be very attractive. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it possible someone felt the appeal of beach, mountain, or other settings were leading some to put off marrying in the temple?  If one wasn’t solid on a desire to be married in the temple, I can see how being able to be married in such settings would be very attractive. 

Yes it is possible but it would have had to have come from a notch or two up the ladder than the SP I think.   Possibly area authority being a bit overly enthusiastic?

Usually these situations are more of a "it is better to marry than to burn" situations where temple marriage is not really an option at the present time.  I know missionaries today find entire families of several children all together as a family where there was no legal marriage.   In fact in certain countries / cultures that is pretty much an accepted practice, especially from parts of the world where religion is persecuted.   So usually it is not about having a "solid desire" to have a temple marriage- that option may not even be open for the forseeable future.