-The Mormon Church is said to possibly be preparing for an inevitable national legalization of same-sex Marriage and therfore considering modifiying tts temple wedding procedures accordingly. So a well-informed source tells me.

THis source has been in contact with what has been described as a well-placed and completely credible senior executive in the Utah corporate world (whose identity is also known but being protected here). This individual is reportedly aware of how the Morrmon Church's legal beagles may be looking at unfolding realites on the same-sex-marriage front.

According to this executive (some of whose posts I have seen), a member of the Mormon Church's legal team (a team that has long been battling marriage equality) is of the view that 50-state legalizion of same-sex marriage is an unavoidable eventuality.

Given that expectation, this Mormon Church legal advisor is reportedly of the view that the Mormon Church may ultimately implement a U.s.-focused policy that not only accepts civil unions, but that combines these constitutionally-lawful unions with LDS temple-performed sealings, in order to prevent the Mormon Church from becoming entangled in legal problems (along the same lines as the Mormon Church is now doing in some European countries).

Commenting on these possible developments, the senior executive observed that if the law ends up driving the Mormon Church to adopt a civil-marriage-first policy, it would make it much easier to preserve family cohesiveness when, otherwise, certain famly members would be excluded from celebrating LDS marital events because they are not deemed worthy to participate.

(related RfM link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1409595)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 05:20PM by steve benson.

The church should quit calling it a wedding, and call it what it is. A sealing. Rule #1, you must be married to be sealed. A complete and separate event. Not that difficult.

I guess I'm a little dense.

So the church lawyers are advising the church no longer to perform civil marriages, in order to avoid the prospect of a discrimination lawsuit by a same-sex couple that wants to marry who are refused by the church. The church doesn't want to be forced to perform same-sex weddings.

I get that.

So the church will not perform marriages in the temple, only sealings of couples who have already been civilly married and can present a marriage certificate.

What's to prevent a same-sex couple, legally married, from asking to be sealed for all eternity in the temple? Does this source imply that the church will do that? And if it refuses, won't it be just as subject to an accusation of discrimination and denial of equal rights?

In other words, I don't see how the church improves its protection by doing away with its civil marrying ability.

I certainly agree that the change will improved the church image among families whose non-Mormon members were excluded from temple weddings.

What additional legal benefits are gained from the sealing ceremony? I don't think there are any; it's 100% religious and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

All the church has to do is revoke or refuse to issue temple recommends. Would the couple then sue the church to force the TR? I can't imagine how that would ever fly in court; First Amendment again. That would open the church to lawsuits by any member ever denied a TR for any reason.

The Catholics, fundies, Baptists, etc. would be terrified as well. They'd know if TSCC could be forced to issue TRs, they might also be called to similar account, and would fight to the death on it. It won't happen. Sealings will remain off limits to the government.

He didn't say the church was doing away with civil unions; he said they were preparing to accept them in the U.S. These days there is a 1-year waiting penalty if you get married civilly before you can get sealed in the temple. Sounds like they will change that so (unworthy) family members can attend the wedding and then the couple can go get sealed whenever they want.

"Commenting on these possible developments, the senior executive observed that if the law ends up driving the Mormon Church to adopt a civil-marriage-first policy, it would make it much easier to preserve family cohesiveness when, otherwise, certain famly members would be excluded from celebrating LDS marital events because they are not deemed worthy to participate."

As if "preserving family cohesiveness" is ever a priority for TSCC! They didn't didn't give a damn about "family cohesiveness" when my convert daughter married in the LDS temple and we were told to to wait outside with the other rabble.

They didn't give a damn about "family cohesiveness" when they told our daughter that she was doing what ghawd wanted and that we would get over it.

Now that makes more sense. Dealing with not allowing family members to attend. And them fighting that PR issue. Should be interesting. I can't wait till my wife tells me about this after it's announced.

I already asked this on the other thread. And form what I have read. They can't force a church to marry any couple. Gay, or straight. Just like now, a straight couple can't sue the church if it won't seal them because they don't have a recommend.

And like ASteve said in that thread

"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."

+1

These newly overturned laws are about the states refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. NOT about the Federal Government compelling churches to perform same-sex marriages.

When I hear of unnamed sources I think ho-hum.

This has to do with not alienating family and friends who are not allowed to attend temple weddings.

If your source thinks this is about avoiding lawsuits, your source is mistaken, and not a lawyer.

There were no lawsuits filed over not allowing interracial couples to marry in the temple, when that became the law of the land. Churches can refuse to marry anyone. Anyone. Anyone. Anyone. Anyone.

I've got names but am under an agreement of confidentiality.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 05:41PM by steve benson.

It's not the law people–it's the LORD. When the revelation comes to stop performing legal marriages in the temple it will be on the Lord's time.

It won't have anything to do with gays or inactive members being excluded.

Revelation baby!

I thought the rumor was also that Bishops would no longer be officiating marriage ceremonies and civil marriages would no longer take place in Church buildings.

Seems a stretch, but wouldn't put it past them.

I can see where they would not let anyone use the church for a wedding, or receptions anymore. Bishops will no longer be allowed to marry anyone anywhere. If you want a church wedding, there will be no such thing for a mormon.

They will have to pay the Lutherans for the use of their building, and hire the minister to marry them. After that, they can go to the temple and be sealed.

None of this would surprise me. They've become so paranoid about lawsuits they removed the kitchens. Now they're going to remove the people. Sounds good to me.

Just like the Mormons... Only church where weddings are not allowed to be conducted by the "pastor" or even held on church grounds.

Similarly, Sunday church services are one of the few places you cannot express your opinion about your religion!

INSANE.

I'm thinking of a Mormon saturated area like Utah or Idaho where there are thousands of young couples being married. If they can't get married in a church then they will have to go to a reception center?

So a smart business idea would be to have a "church" setting for Mormon weddings. Some place that is inexpensive, yet seats a lot of people, and looks like a Mormon chapel. There will be a need for a Mormon-civil wedding outside of a Mormon Church.

A church is under no obligation to marry gays, seal domestic partners, whatever.

The state is another matter.

It just doesn't make sense from a legal point of view. Churches have always been allowed to set their own criteria for whom they marry. For instance in the Catholic church, I've heard that couples have to agree to pre-marital counseling and they have to make certain promises to the church (i.e. to raise their children in the Catholic faith.)

I am also not convinced that people are using the term "civil marriage" correctly. A civil marriage is performed by a government official, i.e. a Justice of the Peace. Government officials are required to marry gay couples in states where this is the law. They are required to marry anyone who meets a particular state's requirements (age, blood test, etc.)

A religious wedding is any wedding performed by a church official. This could be the bishop in a ward building or a temple sealer in a temple wedding. They are allowed to marry or not marry whomever they please.

If these rumors are true, I'm not sure precisely what is driving the Mormon church's actions. Perhaps the church wishes to have a uniform policy world-wide.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It just doesn't make sense from a legal point of
> view. Churches have always been allowed to set
> their own criteria for whom they marry. For
> instance in the Catholic church, I've heard that
> couples have to agree to pre-marital counseling
> and they have to make certain promises to the
> church (i.e. to raise their children in the
> Catholic faith.)
>
> I am also not convinced that people are using the
> term "civil marriage" correctly. A civil marriage
> is performed by a government official, i.e. a
> Justice of the Peace. Government officials are
> required to marry gay couples in states where this
> is the law. They are required to marry anyone who
> meets a particular state's requirements (age,
> blood test, etc.)
>
> A religious wedding is any wedding performed by a
> church official. This could be the bishop in a
> ward building or a temple sealer in a temple
> wedding. They are allowed to marry or not marry
> whomever they please.
>
> If these rumors are true, I'm not sure precisely
> what is driving the Mormon church's actions.
> Perhaps the church wishes to have a uniform policy
> world-wide.

Here's the thing, though:

When a religious official conducts BOTH the religious and civil (legal) marriage ceremonies at the same time, there is an argument that could be made (and it's a good one) that they are not acting solely as a religious official -- but as an employee/agent of the state. As solely a religious official, they are free to practice their religion however they see fit, including discriminating. As an employee/agent of the state, they're not.
As I and others pointed earlier, many other countries have dealt with this issue by not giving religious marriage ceremonies ANY legal status whatsoever. The legal/civil marriage is done by a government official (or agent). Whether or not there's a religious ceremony is up to the individuals, not the state.

I know others have already said there's no chance a religion could be "forced" to perform SS ceremonies...but that would only apply to the religious ceremony, NOT the civil one. As long as a religious official is doing both, they put themselves in a position where they are an agent of the government, and could very well be subject to all government regulations, including non-discrimination. I think this was a "pre-emptive strike" by the church to keep them from being in that position.

You are free in the US to conduct your religion any way you want, even to discriminate. You aren't free to impose your religion on legal government contracts such as marriage. Frankly, I think the US should do as other countries have done, and make ALL religious ceremonies non-legally binding. Period.

You make a good point.

That's not how it works in the US. No church can be compelled to perform the "civil" part of the wedding, period, end of story. It has never happened in the history of the United States, and it will never happen. No one is legally entitled to the services of any church.

Oh please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not how it works in the US. No church can
> be compelled to perform the "civil" part of the
> wedding, period, end of story. It has never
> happened in the history of the United States, and
> it will never happen. No one is legally entitled
> to the services of any church.

I think you missed my point. Yes, you're correct that they can't be *compelled* to perform the civil ceremony. But if they voluntarily DO perform it, then they're acting as an agent of the state, and could be subject to anti-discrimination laws. Essentially, they can pick and choose legally who they do their religious ceremonies for -- they can't pick and choose who they do the civil ceremonies for. So ceasing to do the civil ceremonies keeps the church from the possibility of being told that IF they do civil ceremonies, they must be open to all.

Most likely, the morg will tell TBM couples not to have a lavish civil wedding but to hurry to the temple after the legal requirements are completed.

Eventually,though, most couples will probably opt to have a nice wedding that includes everyone, and get "sealed" quietly some time later in a temple.

Colette wrote: "Eventually, though, most couples will probably opt to have a nice wedding that includes everyone, and get "sealed" quietly some time later in a temple."

I agree and my feeling is that the Church-cult is thinking this too, and it is NOT to their liking. This would take the limelight away from the temple ceremony and I cannot picture that this is what they are willing to settle for.

Folks, the suits are literate enough to read the handwriting on the wall.

Well they know what a tar baby ssm has been for them.

Looks as though they have opted to get one more spanking over with and then wash their hands when the inevitable legal shift is complete.

The cojcolds's 501c3 tax exemption is their holy ring of power.

Must have Precious!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 09:13PM by Shummy.

As usual, the Mormon church has to be forced into playing nice.

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, has already found itself embroiled with a local church regarding the city's equal accommodation laws. Coeur d'Alene is attempting to mandate the church (which is, incidentally, not a 501c3 entity) perform marriages between same-sex couples under the city's non-discrimination code regarding public accommodation. Here's a link (I'm trying to avoid more sensationalistic reporting elsewhere):

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/oct/17/hitching-post-sues-coeur-dalene-after-declining-ma/

Now, why would this trouble the LDS church? If gay marriage is legal, and equal accommodation is upheld without a strict 1A exception, then the church could find itself not necessarily having to perform gay marriages, but having to get out of the marriage business entirely if it doesn't wish to find itself bogged down in similar proceedings. If I were a member of the Q70, I'd see the writing on the wall, namely:
-- Gay marriage is inevitable; and
-- People are pissed they can't attend their loved-ones weddings.

If I were looking at this strategically, it'd be a perfect opportunity to accommodate those in the second group while casting blame on another entity (intransigent judiciary / special interests / whatever). It gives the church an opportunity to alter its heart-crushing civil ceremony / temple marriage rules in the US without it appearing to be giving in.

The city will lose. The law is very clear on this. It's appalling that Couer d'Alene would even consider wasting public money on a clearly unconstitutional demand like this.

Let us never forget that Temple Sealings are very profitable for TSCC. Many non-believers and NOMs keep their tithing current, or pay up, in order to attend family weddings - children, siblings, nieces/nephews, etc. Temple Recommends do not come cheap.

. . . you literally buy your way into heaven to be with your family forever--a destination achieved only if you pay your tithing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 11:13PM by steve benson.

Peggy Stack says they are denying it.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58542650-180/temple-lds-mormon-marriage.html.csp

"'Church leaders are well aware of the issues surrounding marriage and continue to examine them carefully,' LDS Church spokesman Dale Jones said Monday in a statement, 'but we are unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed.'"

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58542650-180/temple-lds-mormon-marriage.html.csp

Statement from the church:

"Church leaders are well aware of the issues surrounding marriage and continue to examine them carefully, but we are unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed,” said Dale Jones, spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/mormon-bloggers-spreading-reports-of-marriage-changes-in-church/article_cdc21777-7f0f-571e-96cd-1cda3194de22.html

Who is the "WE" referred to in this statement? It may refer to the PR department only. In that case, it could well be that the decision has been made by the Big 15 to do away with temple marriages and only perform sealing ordinances, and that said decision has already been conveyed to temple presidents. But, the board of directors has not sent the memo to the PR dept. informing them of that fact, so they are technically honest in stating that "we are unaware of any meetings".

Given the disingenuousness that COB has demonstrated in the past, I would not put a great deal of significance in this denial.

Just look at the timing: For over a century, TSCC has had no problem excluding family members and loved ones from temple marriages in the US. But, mere weeks after the US Supreme Court and a growing list of states make national marriage equality inevitable, the geezers quickly move to change US policy regarding legal marriages in the temples.

It strains credibility to believe they're doing it just to keep families happy, especially since the spectre of not seeing a loved one's temple wedding has been the club TSCC wields to coerce family members back into tithe-paying, butts-in-the-pews, come-to-Jeezus obedience. The effect on the prospective couple is strong, too; having paid the price of not having loved ones at their wedding, the newlyweds will be much more reluctant to leave the church.

They'd only relinquish all that for an even more compelling reason: the prospect of having to perform same-sex marriages.

The sealing is NOT the same as a legal marriage, although they currently can be performed at the same time in the temple. I can see TSCC refusing to perform any legal marriages in temples or any church buildings in order to avoid having to marry same-sex couples.

As Steve's source (and other posters) have noted, TSCC will hide their real motives under a socially-acceptable guise of family unity -- something they certainly never cared about before.

Sounds like LDS inc may have lost control of the story today--so hard to have a "revelation" after it has been posted all over FaceBook!

This would be fantastic. Now mormon couples won't have to worry about meeting chastity rules for being "worthy" to marry in the temple. Perhaps more will try each other out sexually so they can figure out if they are a good match physically.

So if you drink a beer or a coffee or any number of mormon sins they can refuse to marry you but they have to marry you if you are gay?

Never mind the 1st Amendment, the church has to barricade itself against phantom lawsuits and scapegoat the gays.

Thanks for the the heads up!

The church needs to hire lawyers who actually understand how the law works. The legalization of same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact whatsoever on churches. No church can be legally forced to perform religious rituals for people who do not qualify according to the church's doctrine. That's it. It's really that simple.

In France (and also in Monaco), the only marriages legally recognised by the State are civil marriages. Thus, Catholics who want to get married in a Mass first get married civilly. Since the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of marriages for Catholics which take place outside the church, if they were practicing Catholics, they would go through a church wedding the same or next day.

When Prince Rainier III married Grace Kelly, they first had the civil marriage. The next day, they had the nuptial Mass celebrated by the Bishop of Monaco. The same procedure occurred when Prince Albert II married Princess Charlene.

I think the church wants to change their policy and allow civil weddings before temple weddings because they realize they are getting a lot of bad press/bad will from their current practice. But if you are infallible and perfect, how do you make such a change? Oh, right - blame the gays. Make it sound like the government forced the change you want on you to appease civil laws. Oh, and be sure and make temple sealing attendance STILL a badge of honor among Mormons so you don't lose any money. Can't you just hear some Mormon R.S. witch saying (in that sticky sweet voice) "Oh Jane, I saw you at the civil ceremony but didn't see you at the temple - did you get sick or something?" They will still get their money from people wanting to be able to attend the sealing to prove their worthiness to everyone watching.

I'll believe it when I see it. Haven't these rumors surfaced before? And won't this make a lot of members angry that their loved one couldn't be at their weddings but now they're changing the rules?

I'm friends with a lot of TBMs and exmos whose parents or family couldn't see them get married because they weren't in "good standing" or weren't members. One of my friends couldn't have either of his parents there. I couldn't have any friends or any of my siblings there.

I don't know what to make of it.

Yes, we've heard these rumblings before, but never from Peggy Stack at the Trib, which makes me think that this time it might just have legs.

I agree, more than one bride will sit there, thinking "six months ago, I made my mom sit in a waiting room like a dog and had I waited, she could have seen me get married?!?!?!?"

People who had their family not at their wedding will mad when this changes because it proves it was for nothing. I was denied attending the weddings of my siblings even though I was temple worthy TBM at the time. Just because I was the youngest.

I hope LDS legal team adds in their new temple policy that if you have been a member for some time, and can be sealed in the temple once married, that you won't have to wait a year for the process.

Make it a normal whenever you can get there kind of thing like the UK. However, I'm not sure if the UK says you need to be sealed the next day or withing a week.


Will the US policy change hint from the bishohps that you should have sex, after being legally married, until you are sealed. Because having BIC kids is "better" than getting sealed to them later. For all those marriage babies.

If you boinked a woman and she is 2 to 3 months pregnant, and get married, will you still have to wait a year before the sealing?


It sure is wonderful that TSM gets modern day revelation on important matters.

Nothing on ISIS as of late though. God is still thinking about that.