Hey folks, here is some info that was posted this morning in another group. I'm reposting here (with permission), but leaving out identifying names/specific temple locations here in the U.S.
______________________

Getting word that temple presidents are being told about the change in doing marriages. That the church will no longer be performing them (the civil portion) and will only be doing sealings. Two people are reporting this - one has a friend that was told this in a meeting in the (a MORCOR location) temple. The other person's father works in the (another MORCOR location) temple and was in a meeting on Sat where the temple president said he had been informed of the upcoming change. Seemed to think it may be announced in Dec or Jan and begin the beginning of the year but wasn't sure. Was told to prepare....which I have no idea what that means since won't they be using the same rooms/stuff to do sealings like they always have? Seems like it would just require some minor changes in wording and signing of documents.

But hey it's another small indication that this change is coming....

"they will set a date, and from that time on, if you come to the temple to be sealed, you will need to bring a marriage certificate. That's about all he knew. The TP speculated that they would make an announcement on Dec.1 that starting Jan. 1 all sealings in the temple would need to be preceded with a civil ceremony and the presentation of a marriage certificate."

My first reaction is WTH...they are going to wait until a month before to let people know? What about all the couples that are currently engaged and planning their weddings? Is this just some minor point....oh don't worry just go down to the court house and quickly get that civil wedding part done and then continue to focus on the temple where the really important stuff is going to take place. What about those couples that would have waited to have family/friends there if they knew the change was coming?

If they really do keep this hush until then and give them 4 weeks notice....that's truly sh*tty.

I heard some time ago that the letters were written. This is going to happen!

I would be shocked if this is true. The temple wedding is a cash cow for TSCC and the threat of not being able to attend the ceremony of loved ones is the stick used to keep the sheeple in line and paying.

Can anyone else confirm?

Yes it has been a cash cow. But now that gays can marry legally then if the temples are performing marriages, but not for gays, then this raises the specter of discrimination lawsuits and now the temple marriage policies of the past that have brought in so much revenue can bring some liabilities upon them.

We thank thee o God for a profit. Oh how that is the core doctrine of the church. It's all for JE$U$.

Now what will be interesting to speculate upon is what they will try to do to maintain as much of the cash cow benefits while eliminating this liability.

Hey, there is zero threat of discrimination lawsuits for not marrying gays in temples. A church can refuse to marry anyone at all - anyone. It's the government can't refuse to marry qualified individuals.

This is about not excluding families from weddings. They finally figured out this monumentally ticks people off. Everyone can attend the civil ceremony.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 04:41PM by Brother Of Jerry.

The bill of rights protects religions from being forced to perform marriages for coke drinkers, masturbators, and gay people. The only people who must perform marriages are state employees such as judges, magistrates, and justices of the peace. Those wedding chapel type businesses that aren't churches and have performed weddings civil or religious for everyone can't suddenly be exempted from same sex weddings because - religion! But that does not apply to actual churches. The church has lied for so long that the big bad gays will make them open their ugly temples that now they are making this decision for no reason. Do they not realize that by not doing civil ceremonies, Mormon couples will have to have a civil ceremony performed in addition to their sealing? You can't just sign a wedding certificate and be done. Do they think couples will just stand before the JOP and then get sealed in the temple and let the sucky church gym wedding reception "do" for their non temple-worthy friends and relations? I think not.

I also had discussions about this in some additional detail over the weekend. As I understand it, Bite Me's info is reported by two independent sources in positions to know who are not aware of each other, so it seems like this is strong confirmation that there is movement in the cult to make changes. Another source reported hearing from a third insider today so I think there's more than just smoke on this issue IMO.

SSM 'to blame' I guess....

then... will some couples 'be ashamed' to announce their civil marriages?

will the (U.S., N. America) waiting period be changed/abolished???


Hmmm.

It depends who you are. A Mormon Presidential candidate didn't have to wait a year. He and his wife flew from Michigan to Utah the day after their civil marriage.

You can buy anything for money.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling and more anti-marriage-equality laws falling like dominoes, TSCC is probably rushing to figure out how they can avoid performing same-sex marriages in the temples without incurring legal penalties.

Changing policy to avoid performing ANY legal marriages seems like a way to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Since a "sealing" is not and has never been the same thing as a legal marriage, they can choose for whom they'll perform the ordinance. If they aren't doing legal marriages in the temple, they can't be sued. Simple.

They may well pass the policy down privately (to affected couples as well) in order to avoid yet more negative publicity before going public with an announcement. Brainwashed TBM couples and their families will no doubt see it as a good thing, even if they have to make hasty arrangements to comply.

This is how most of the rest of the world deals with religious ceremonies -- they have no legal force, and are only religious ceremonies. Even in *extremely* religious countries like the Philippines (where I got married), you *must* go get the marriage certificate/contract from the civil authority, or you don't have a legal marriage, no matter what religious ceremony you do or don't do.

I suspect the church is considering this because they don't want to be "forced" to do SSM ceremonies in the temple. Which they probably wouldn't be. But this might be pre-emptive "just in case."

If this happens, you're likely to see a huge increase in the number of ward bishops who get certified to do legal marriages, and a big uptick in the number of marriage ceremonies done in ward buildings. Since they'll probably charge couples to use the ward buildings, this could be a significant new source of revenue! :)

Yes, it's reportedly been in the works for some time. This is PERFECT timing. They will be able to stop the practice of keeping "unworthy" parents from their kids' weddings, which has and is causing them so much bad press, while being able to blame it on gay marriage. Of course, you know it will be that they would obviously been forced to allow gays to be married in the temple. You know, like they've been forced to let "unworthy" heteros be married in the temple.

It's a bunch of BS, but the sheeple will buy it. "Oh, us poor persecwooted mormons. Now no one can get married in the temple because of those gays and their agenda." You just gotta hope that they will let couples have nice weddings, any way they choose and not start putting stipulations on it, like you can't have sex until you are sealed or some stuipd crap like that. I can even see them saying that couples have to go to the temple for their endowment before the wedding. Don't want them to get used to seeing each other in sexy undies and then have the big letdown. You know they will still try to make it so the unworthies will be shamed if they can't go to the sealing, so they don't lose a HUGE revenue stream.

NormaRae.... BAMMM!!

You nailed it.

funny...

some states require that an officiant get a license from the state (why?), others (the Western U.S., as far as I know) don't.

When a licensed LDS Bp is released... does HE still have a license (in states that require one)

I know my father didn't need any kind of license to perform marriages when he was a bishop. This was in the eastern U.S. Couples have to go register for a marriage license and sign it in front of them. Then you just take it in or mail it back for filing after it's been signed by the bishop. The document can even just be signed by a notary and sent back with no ceremony.

I think they're required in Ohio.

just sayin'

U.S. , N. America Waiting Period???

TSCC is afraid of law suits. Even though wedding are a cash cow, their accountants have weighed the cost of lost revenue vs law suits - apparently the risk of law suits is greater.

This minister couple in ID will be finded a $1000 dollars per denied gay wedding if they don't sumit. Stories like this confirm TSCC is changing sacred revelation due to law changes, not because of any revelation. It's interesting they are not claiming any revelatory impetus as they did in 1978, with the blacks. Sort of keeping it low key.

Hugh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-thr
> eatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-s
> ame-sex-weddings/


"....But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation."

Should not the prophets, with the power of discernment, sen this coming?

<oh don't worry just go down to the court house and quickly get that civil wedding part done and then continue to focus on the temple where the really important stuff is going to take place.>

Probably.

Bite Me:

I think I am a real PROPHET.

Posted back on April 4, 2014:

**Saturday’s GC ANNOUNCEMENT by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf**

THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND QUORUM OF THE TWELVE: “Marriages are no longer performed in Temples” See: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1227992,1227992#msg-1227992

From that post:

"Under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve we are instructed to make a change to the temple wedding ceremony. The term “married for time and all eternity” will be changed with respect to all future activity in the church. We will refer to this sacred ordinance as “sealed for time and all eternity.”

"The temple will only perform sealings for the living for those who have had civil weddings first. Currently, this is the procedure in some countries in the world. However, it shall be universal to the entire body of the church in all countries beginning Monday September 1st, 2014. Again, civil marriage ceremonies shall precede all temple sealings for the living and entrance into the Lord’s sacred house shall continue to be authorized through the approved temple recommend interview process.

"The secular world is rapidly changing and the adversary seeks chaos. He seeks havoc. He seeks destruction. He aims to disrupt and hinder the work of the Lord. However, be assured that the Lord’s purposes shall be fulfilled by those who desire to keep His commandments and are obedient to the laws and ordinances of the gospel which He has set forth."

***LDS Inc. took the talk and are just a few months behind schedule to implement the civil ceremony first, and temple sealing ONLY second. That way they can keep out all the gays.

Curious that your source says NO CIVIL WEDDINGS performed by TSCC? That too, would be to keep gays out of LDS buildings to prevent any lawsuits.

So I endorse going down to the local Protestant Church, have a nice wedding, and enjoy a grand pipe organ accompaniment with your processional.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 03:18PM by jiminycricket.

No marriages PERIOD in LDS buildings or marriages performed by LDS Bishops etc. would eliminate any gay couple's lawsuit.

One discriminatory lawsuit where the plaintiffs would NOT SETTLE OUT OF COURT but instead would force LDS INC. to open its books would SPELL disaster for TSCC. They want those financials kept secret from everyone -- especially the members who they continue to milk for more and more money.

Now everyone, including the straight couples, CANNOT use LDS buildings for weddings or be married in LDS approved civil weddings.

This shows just how much LDS Inc. fears their financials from becoming public.

Quite right!

So if a gay Mormon couple wish to be married in a Mormon church building, this will still not be allowe'd?
So the discrimination against gays will continue in the Mormon church?
The church is still breaking the law, are they not?

No, it is legal for churches to discriminate.

It is only for profit marriage businesses that are forced to be human about it. Like the wedding chapel business posted above, they can be forced because it's for profit. It's like a restaurant, not allowed to discriminate.

This makes total sense. I was wondering how long it would take them. Have any of our members from Utah noticed any extra break down of civil society since SSM had been allowed?

all of the other so called churches also need to out of the civil marriage business.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all of the other so called churches also need to
> out of the civil marriage business.

Agreed!!!

I think we are overplaying the gay and financial aspects of this.

During the Mitt campaign, one of the easiest ways to discredit the church was to bring up their blocking of family members from weddings. It really didn't play well, and they could do nothing to refute it.

Did anyone else notice that Mitt is polling really well right now?

That's how Europe does it.

The legal marriage contract is before the civil authority and must be complied with.

Any church wedding is solely within the faith of the couple's choosing but not a legal requirement.

Being the businessman that I am, I see a HUGE money-making potential here. Most "cool" LDS couples won't want to get married in an LDS chapel anyways. I mean, who wants to be walked 'down the aisles'. Just the fact that the chapel has two aisles, already makes it a no-go for traditional weddings. And I can't think of one person that would want to get married in Relief Society Room or forbid, the Cultural Hall. Plus, most LDS bathrooms smell like a combination of B.O. and urine, so it's definately not a 'classy' place to get married.

That being said, I could see LD$ entrepenours (especially in Utah, Idaho and other LDS populated places) opening 'LDS-marketed' event venues.

As an example, can you imagine owning an 'LDS-themed' event venue in a beautiful location such as Sundance, where the couple can have an LDS marriage AND reception with zero guilt, and everyone invited (even the non-mormon uncle)?

There would be so much money in this. I wouldn't be surprised if LD$ has already figured this out and is secretly investing in properties and event-venues in the intermountain west. If I only had the money, I would start building them now...

Yup.
The reception rooms in the Joseph Smith building and the Lion house are raking in the money from high income mormons and have been for years.

IF they had a same sex wedding and now want to be sealed same problem

The argument of gays are able to get married and LDS would be forced to marry them doesn't make sense to me.

If you don't have a temple recommend you can't get married in the Temple. And the church isn't forced to marry straight couples who don't have a recommend. So how would they be forced to marry a gay couple? They can just say "they don't have a recommend to get married"

Thoughts on this?

You are correct, the argument is pure nonsense, church are and will continue to be allowed to discriminate. The Church of the Aryan Brotherhood is allowed to decline to marry whites and blacks. It is only for profit marriage business that are required to treat people equally.

This move is likely not a legal move, it is a PR move. If it is a legal move, it is based on some bad legal advice or just extreme paranoia about laws changing to allow suits against churches. Because as the law now stands you would just get your case dismissed, you wouldn't even get to argue the merits of your cased, you don't have one. And no one would be looking into anyone's books at the hearing on the motion to dismiss.

WHAT ABOUT the waiting period???

I wondered about this too. In England you can't get married in Temple's. So you have to get married first and THEN go to Temple. And they can go with in 24 or 48 hours. (I can't remember which)

Which I always thought was strange. Since if you do it in the US you HAVE to wait a year. Doesn't make much sense.

The only reason why perfectly obedient gay members would not get a Temple Recommend and be sealed, would basically be because they were gay, although in a committed and legally lawful marriage.
How could the church dodge this obvious discrimination against loving and committed gay member couples?

How many times now in history has the Federal Government had to force the Mormon church into doing the right thing?

The church will try to take credit for the change - like blacks and the priesthood - but we all know what really happened.

But someday in the future good TBMs will swear that all family members have always attended Mormon weddings, just like there were never death oaths in the Temple ceramony.

Sounds like they're going to wait until the last BYU marriage rush over Xmas break to make their announcement.