Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

exactley, SSM has been legal in Canada for 15 years ish, no Bishop or Stake President have ever been jailed for not performing one

Yet, as Tacenda says:  "The handwriting is on the wall".  Does it disturb you that Idaho (supposedly a conservative state) in 2014 tried to coerce an elderly pastoring couple into performing same-sex marriages against their will?  Please re-read Smacs link to the story above.

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Bishops and stake presidents don't charge a fee to officiate in a marriage ceremony.  There is no financial transaction, ergo essentially no means of using public accommodations laws and/or anti-discrimination statutes to punish bishops and stake presidents.

But there are other religious groups whose religious leaders do charge a fee.  Will the day come when they will be compelled, pursuant to public accommodations laws and/or anti-discrimination statutes, to officiate in same-sex weddings?

Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Little Sisters of the Poor.

Beto O'Rourke's threats.

The Knapps in Coeur d'Alene.

Lawfare against religious liberty is an ongoing thing.  I think we need to pay attention to these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

if they charge a fee then yes, they should be subject to the law, the Government gave them the license after all. They gave it and they enforce the rules that the person/company willingly agreed to when they got the license. If the person/company doesn't like it, then get out of the cake/wedding business. I doubt God is going to hold it against someone for baking a cake for gay weddings. In the Church we see weddings as a religious ceremony but not everyone else does, no one forces you to pick a minister, you could get a judge, captain of a ship, a marriage commissioner, etc. to marry you. On the other hand is "religious liberty" another wedge that will drive gay people out of churches for some bizarre?

I have never heard of Beto O'Rourke but threats come from all sides, left, right and center

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, longview said:

Yet, as Tacenda says:  "The handwriting is on the wall".  Does it disturb you that Idaho (supposedly a conservative state) in 2014 tried to coerce an elderly pastoring couple into performing same-sex marriages against their will?  Please re-read Smacs link to the story above.

none whatsoever. If you follow the story, actually, you will know that these nutjobs weren't forced to marry anyone. I hope they get their license taken away, no one forced them to get into this business, they freely chose to do so and freely agreed to the terms and conditions of the license. They can always quit doing it, God doesn't recognize these marriages anyways so it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bishops and stake presidents don't charge a fee to officiate in a marriage ceremony.  There is no financial transaction, ergo essentially no means of using public accommodations laws and/or anti-discrimination statutes to punish bishops and stake presidents.

But there are other religious groups whose religious leaders do charge a fee.  Will the day come when they will be compelled, pursuant to public accommodations laws and/or anti-discrimination statutes, to officiate in same-sex weddings?

Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Little Sisters of the Poor.

Beto O'Rourke's threats.

The Knapps in Coeur d'Alene.

Lawfare against religious liberty is an ongoing thing.  I think we need to pay attention to these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Expand  

if they charge a fee then yes, they should be subject to the law, the Government gave them the license after all. They gave it and they enforce the rules that the person/company willingly agreed to when they got the license. If the person/company doesn't like it, then get out of the cake/wedding business. I doubt God is going to hold it against someone for baking a cake for gay weddings. In the Church we see weddings as a religious ceremony but not everyone else does, no one forces you to pick a minister, you could get a judge, captain of a ship, a marriage commissioner, etc. to marry you. On the other hand is "religious liberty" another wedge that will drive gay people out of churches for some bizarre?

I have never heard of Beto O'Rourke but threats come from all sides, left, right and center

How did this so quickly turn into a SSM thread? Can we keep it about the OP?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if they charge a fee then yes, they should be subject to the law, the Government gave them the license after all. They gave it and they enforce the rules that the person/company willingly agreed to when they got the license. If the person/company doesn't like it, then get out of the cake/wedding business.

Joseph Smith had to abide by civil laws to organize the Church on April 6, 1830.  Does that mean he would have to submit to government approval for all aspects of doctrines and services?  Hopefully you would say NO to that!

This is tantamount to saying that no businesses can have religious scruples and convictions and expressions.  They did this already with public schools in the USA.  Which was blatantly UNconstitutional.

Link to comment
Just now, longview said:

Joseph Smith had to abide by civil laws to organize the Church on April 6, 1830.  Does that mean he would have to submit to government approval for all aspects of doctrines and services?  Hopefully you would say NO to that!

This is tantamount to saying that no businesses can have religious scruples and convictions and expressions.  They did this already with public schools in the USA.  Which was blatantly UNconstitutional.

yes, why wouldn't I or anyone say yes to that? I don't know if the Government even would give approval for their doctrines? clearly they didn't when polygamy came around.

some people's religious scruples include loving thy neighbor and some people, most people, aren't in the US so the US constitution is totally irrelevant to their lives

Link to comment

I'm not denying that in the US there are threats to religious freedom and we should be vigilant.  When I was executive director of the Mormon Studies program at Claremont we invited Elder Oaks to come and speak about it, and in his speech he cited my Rutgers Law & Religion article about religious freedom issues pertaing to gay marriage.  

There are threats.

But it rather hurts, rather than advances, the religious freedom argument by citing false news reports meant to inflame and upset conservatives.  It makes us look like fools and naifs.  

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

… most people, aren't in the US so the US constitution is totally irrelevant to their lives

For Latter-day Saints who accept the teachings in the Doctrine and Covenants, this is an incorrect statement. Principles in the U.S. Constitution that align with divine principles of moral agency are most certainly relevant to their lives regardless of where they live. Jesus Christ has explicitly said so. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

A 70 year marriage that created a beautiful, loving, gospel centered family is somehow second class to a marriage of 3 months where promise was seen, but nothing much beyond wedding presents opened and thank you notes sent out and a semester of classes as they both are consumed with studying.  It doesn’t make sense to me.

If you think about it in terms of [Time Together in Mortality] / [Total Years of Existence] the denominator is going to go to infinity.

So, in the end, there's no meaningful difference if the numerator is 3 months or 70 years.

Perhaps what matters most then is the covenant which is made (and kept) during this probationary state, and not the amount of time that we have to spend together.

 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For Latter-day Saints who accept the teachings in the Doctrine and Covenants, this is an incorrect statement. Principles in the U.S. Constitution that align with divine principles of moral agency are most certainly relevant to their lives regardless of where they live. Jesus Christ has explicitly said so. 

this isn't the place to debate that, Freedom, has brought this up previously and I forget how it went

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

this isn't the place to debate that, Freedom, has brought this up previously and I forget how it went

I agree. But it was you who brought it up. I was only responding to your remark. 
 

You can’t just toss off a comment like “the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to most people’s lives” and not expect some push back. Not while I’m around, anyway. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. But it was you who brought it up. I was only responding to your remark. 

Longview brought it up! I was responding to him

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Will the day come when they will be compelled, pursuant to public accommodations laws and/or anti-discrimination statutes, to officiate in same-sex weddings?

-Smac

In the US the answer is no as long as there is a first amendment.  Since there is no legal requirement to be married by a religious person, SSM candidates can find plenty of alternatives to perform the act.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, longview said:

Yet, as Tacenda says:  "The handwriting is on the wall".  Does it disturb you that Idaho (supposedly a conservative state) in 2014 tried to coerce an elderly pastoring couple into performing same-sex marriages against their will?  Please re-read Smacs link to the story above.

Definitely not Idaho- just a north Idaho city leader’s misinterpretation of Idaho law. Former governor Butch Otter actually wasted millions of our taxpayer dollars fighting gay marriage. He had to know he wouldn’t win. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, JAHS said:

First Presidency Discontinues Time-only Marriages in the Temple

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced that time-only marriages in the temple will no longer be performed.

The discontinuance was addressed in a Monday, May 24, letter to General Authorities; General Officers; Area Seventies; stake, mission, district and temple presidents; and bishops and branch presidents.

Time-only marriages in the temple have been reserved for those who have previously been sealed to a spouse who is deceased, according to the Church’s General Handbook (see 27.3.3). They had to meet the same requirements for a temple sealing — including a valid temple recommend for living ordinances and a marriage license. A marriage in the temple for time only was not authorized for members who were in the process of seeking a cancellation of sealing or a sealing clearance, according to the handbook.

Signed by President Russell M. Nelson, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring, the letter states:

“A temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the house of the Lord. It is a holy place of worship where individuals make sacred covenants with God and receive promised blessings. These covenants and blessings are eternal in nature.

“Because of the eternal nature of the temple and the work that takes place there, it has been decided that time-only marriages in the temple will no longer be performed. In the case where a couple desires to be married civilly and where a sealing is not contemplated or possible, the couple is encouraged to invite their bishop or stake president — where it is legal — to officiate at the marriage ceremony.”

________________________

I have to agree this makes sense and I never really understood the purpose of time-only marriages. Worthy civilly married couples can still serve in the temple together and in so doing maintain a righteous sacred marriage.

I'm glad they clarified their intent and what they were/are ending.  Before this change the procedure has been to do both a time-only civil marriage, requiring a license from the state or jurisdiction, as well as the eternal marriage made possible by the power of the priesthood.  So with the clarification it sounds to me like they are ending time-only civil marriage ceremonies only when they are not followed up or expected to be followed up by an eternal marriage ceremony.  But both at the same time will continue.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

If you think about it in terms of [Time Together in Mortality] / [Total Years of Existence] the denominator is going to go to infinity.

So, in the end, there's no meaningful difference if the numerator is 3 months or 70 years.

Perhaps what matters most then is the covenant which is made (and kept) during this probationary state, and not the amount of time that we have to spend together.

 

Using that reasoning, why does anything really matter in mortality besides getting ordinances performed...which can be done after death.

I am not speaking of what is affected in the eternities as I actually believe there isn’t much resemblance to mortality and I do trust the Lord to make all good for those who desire it.  What real eternal significance can there be in a parent child relationship that lasted 20 years for beings that have been around eternally as equals as far as we know?  What is the eternal relationship between one who as a child in mortality at least and likely before in eternity is more spiritually “noble” than their parent?  We will all be one with Christ, so parent-child mortal relationships seem almost irrelevant to me outside of a family connection which all will embrace as the family of God.  Look at the relationship of Abraham and his father, Terah....who is more fatherly in their relationship...not the actual father?  Does it appear in any way possible that somehow Terah should have some sort of eternal dominion over Abraham because he came first in mortality...when it looks like for most of his life he was a poor example and a rotten father for a significant part of Abraham’s life even if he finally repented after Abraham showed him a better way...who is the true parent, the true guide through mortality in that relationship?

——

No, what matters to me in the context of this thread is how the perception of an unsealed, but temple worthy and magnificent in all other ways marriage is seen as second class...and what that means in the here and now to how the couple and others view the relationship and the family and the perception of their children that they don’t actually belong to their living, loving, caring father, that their parents’ relationship is at best a temporary convenience, their biological and legal father merely a placeholder for a stranger they have no choice but to accept if they want to be worthy of eternal life themselves.

These 100 years we may exist on earth is less than a second in the day of eternity, but it is a lifetime for those going through it, all they have ever known even if they hope for more.  The Church teaches eternal families so strongly in part, IMO, to help children and parents feel grounded, secure in that relationship so they are willing and able to accept the sacrifices of discipleship.  Why have a policy/tradition that diminishes the impact of the eternal families teaching, that might even turn a child or parent eventually against the Church (‘how dare the Church try to rob me of my father/children’) when the policy is not in effect after death?

We have solved this issue for the dead by allowing all spouses to be sealed to each other, though I don’t know if children can then be sealed to their biological father as part of that sealing, I hope so.  We know there are exceptions where women are allowed multiple sealings to their husbands while living.  There is so much good that can be done if we take the next step and make it standard policy rather than exception.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Jamie said:

I'm glad they clarified their intent and what they were/are ending.  Before this change the procedure has been to do both a time-only civil marriage, requiring a license from the state or jurisdiction, as well as the eternal marriage made possible by the power of the priesthood.  So with the clarification it sounds to me like they are ending time-only civil marriage ceremonies only when they are not followed up or expected to be followed up by an eternal marriage ceremony.  But both at the same time will continue.

They are ending in the temple time-only marriages which would essentially be the same or legally be the same as a civil marriage outside the temple.
The way I see it all time-only marriages in the temple will be discontinued. A couple can be married civilly outside the temple and then be sealed later in the temple.
Or a couple can be legally married and sealed at the same time in the temple, but I would not call it a civil marriage even though it is a legal marriage.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They are ending in the temple time-only marriages which would essentially be the same or legally be the same as a civil marriage outside the temple.
The way I see it all time-only marriages in the temple will be discontinued. A couple can be married civilly outside the temple and then be sealed later in the temple.
Or a couple can be legally married and sealed at the same time in the temple, but I would not call it a civil marriage even though it is a legal marriage.

I suppose we just compartmentalize those things in different ways, then.  I consider the time-only part to be the part requiring a license from the state or jurisdiction of the secular government, whichever body of secular government handles such things on this planet.  Which is totally separated from the government body of the Church, which has its own way of doing things in God's kingdom.  So the time-only marriage ceremony pertains to a separate government or kingdom with its own rules and regulations, such as requiring a marriage license to formalize a marriage contract, and also a secularly ordained minister who has a license to marry those who are getting married, as well as age requirements and whatever other rules and regulations they expect before considering those people to be married by a licensed minister who legally declares that he has followed the government rules and regulations according to secular law.  Which is part of what usually happens when a couple marries in a temple of God, with that license to marry and a minister who has been ordained by secular authorities as well as the priesthood of God.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Using that reasoning, why does anything really matter in mortality besides getting ordinances performed...which can be done after death.

To obtain a physical body and to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."

 

Quote

I am not speaking of what is affected in the eternities as I actually believe there isn’t much resemblance to mortality and I do trust the Lord to make all good for those who desire it.

I agree.

 

Quote

No, what matters to me in the context of this thread is how the perception of an unsealed, but temple worthy and magnificent in all other ways marriage is seen as second class...

But couldn't something be good, wonderful, and magnificently beneficial, yet still not be the most importing thing?

 

 

Link to comment

In my experience I don't recall people being married outside the temple being considered second class citizens, people can be doofus' regardless of where and when they were married-if they were married at all even!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In my experience I don't recall people being married outside the temple being considered second class citizens, people can be doofus' regardless of where and when they were married-if they were married at all even!

I agree. Most of the time we don't know if any of our fellow ward members were married in the temple or not. Family members might be an issue, but I have never heard them called "second class citizens", but rather potentials for temple marriage.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...