"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Pelado]

I, too, am in favor of this change. In Argentina, civil weddings were required before a temple sealing could take place (no waiting period required). This should be much better for those with non-member/part-member/non-card-holding families.

[Moliere]

I love this Twitter poster. So many good insights.

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

Oh, I don't know...

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/gay-c...sal-of-wedding

https://www.premierchristianity.com/...edding-refusal

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rch-of-england

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-even...les-marriages/

Did you actually read any of those links? None of them suggested the religious institution was obligated to perform ceremonies that conflict with their own teachings.

From the last link:

Although same-sex marriage has been legal in England and Wales since 2014, religious organisations are under no obligation to extend their marriage services to gay couples

Again, why do you thing the church faces civil liability now for choosing who they marry in a religious ceremony?

Is the practice discriminatory? Sure. So what? Do you anticipate any country forcing the Catholic church to marry two Lutherans in their non-public owned churches? Should we expect countries to force rabbis to marry Muslims in a synagogue?

[Applejack]

Did you actually read any of those links? None of them suggested the religious institution was obligated to perform ceremonies that conflict with their own teachings.

From the last link:


Again, why do you thing the church faces civil liability now for choosing who they marry in a religious ceremony?

Is the practice discriminatory? Sure. So what? Do you anticipate any country forcing the Catholic church to marry two Lutherans in their non-public owned churches? Should we expect countries to force rabbis to marry Muslims in a synagogue?

Uncle Ted sez:
Irrelevant link
Irrelevant link
Hillary Clinton emails
Irrelevant link

[Uncle Ted]

Did you actually read any of those links? None of them suggested the religious institution was obligated to perform ceremonies that conflict with their own teachings.

From the last link:


Again, why do you thing the church faces civil liability now for choosing who they marry in a religious ceremony?

Is the practice discriminatory? Sure. So what? Do you anticipate any country forcing the Catholic church to marry two Lutherans in their non-public owned churches? Should we expect countries to force rabbis to marry Muslims in a synagogue?

Did you actually read my original post? I said the liability of lawsuits. The LGBT has their funding and legal resources. For example, the ACLU. The church would have to provide theirs. History is just repeating itself:

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

So how does the church avoid the liability? Simple. Get all the way out of the business of marrying people and let the government do it.

I am just hoping that BYU will change its LGBT policies so I can get my employer to match my donations like they will to about any other university.

[myboynoah]

Uncle Ted sez:
Irrelevant link
Irrelevant link
Hillary Clinton emails
Irrelevant link

lol

[LVAllen]

Did you actually read my original post? I said the liability of lawsuits. The LGBT has their funding and legal resources. For example, the ACLU. The church would have to provide theirs. History is just repeating itself

As much as you would love to use the ACLU as the boogeyman, you still haven't answered my question. On what theory do you envision a minister or a church being liable because they declined to perform a religious ceremony? Discrimination? Why do you think they aren't allowed to discriminate in that fashion?

Just saying "But they could SUE!" is silly. It doesn't cost that much to get a lawsuit dismissed when the lawsuit contravenes well-settled law.

So how does the church avoid the liability? Simple. Get all the way out of the business of marrying people and let the government do it.

That's... umm... an interesting suggestion coming from a self-declared libertarian. Instead of having the government perform all marriages, why not simply have the government set the facially neutral requirements for officiating marriages, and allowing individuals to privately contract with officiants to conduct their wedding? Maybe with a Court Clerk who will marry any eligible couple in a non-religious ceremony for a set fee? Oh wait. That's the system we have now.

[smokymountainrain]

I, too, am in favor of this change. In Argentina, civil weddings were required before a temple sealing could take place (no waiting period required). This should be much better for those with non-member/part-member/non-card-holding families.

i haven't read the entire thread, but does anybody exist who isn't in favor of this change? seems like one of those things that is a no-brainer and something church should have done years ago. or never implemented the delay in the first place.

[jay santos]

i haven't read the entire thread, but does anybody exist who isn't in favor of this change? seems like one of those things that is a no-brainer and something church should have done years ago. or never implemented the delay in the first place.

The change is very popular and a no-brainer for many situations. But it could have a lot of ramifications which could be seen as negative. Temple weddings might even phase out slowly over time. I can see why they struggled changing this.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Yes, I know I was neither prescient nor insightful, but I posted this in 2009:

I may have posted something ... about the elimination of the one-year waiting rule, but I don't believe the Church has made any announcement or hint in that direction. I'm aware of it being discussed among some of the higher-ups, and a good friend was invited to submit a brief on why the change should be made.

It's definitely the right move, since the rule doesn't apply in certain countries where couples have to be married civilly before a church or temple wedding. LDS couples in most European countries, for example, get hitched first at city hall then head on over to the temple for the sealing. Killing the one-year wait would eliminate the heartache of nonmember parents being unable to witness the marriage of their convert children.

But things often move slowly in Church administration, and while I expect a change, I don't expect it imminently.

A mere ten years later, nailed it.

[Uncle Ted]

As much as you would love to use the ACLU as the boogeyman, you still haven't answered my question. On what theory do you envision a minister or a church being liable because they declined to perform a religious ceremony? Discrimination? Why do you think they aren't allowed to discriminate in that fashion?

Just saying "But they could SUE!" is silly. It doesn't cost that much to get a lawsuit dismissed when the lawsuit contravenes well-settled law.

I don't think the issue of religious freedom vs. LGBT discrimination has been decided by the supreme court. The cake shop issue was a really narrow ruling. If religious freedom trumps LGBT discrimination then point me to the supreme court ruling.

That's... umm... an interesting suggestion coming from a self-declared libertarian. Instead of having the government perform all marriages, why not simply have the government set the facially neutral requirements for officiating marriages, and allowing individuals to privately contract with officiants to conduct their wedding? Maybe with a Court Clerk who will marry any eligible couple in a non-religious ceremony for a set fee? Oh wait. That's the system we have now.

You need to brush up on your libertarianism. The libertarian view and my view is that the government get the hell out of the business of marriage all together and not recognize it. In other words, only religion would recognize marriage. Then there is not an issue. The LDS church would recognize LDS marriages (maybe even bring back plural marriage). The church of satan would recognize church of satan marriages (even to goats or whatever). Atheism can just say "F it" and just live together. And so on. Everyone is happy! That is never going to happen, however.

Currently, the government regulates who and who can not perform a marriage ceremony. Some states the definition of who can marriage someone is very loose but it may not continue this way. I see it very likely that the government would stop allowing anyone that discriminates from performing marriage ceremonies in the future. If some group doesn't recognize all legally defined marriages then that group may not be recognized by the government to perform marriage ceremonies in the future. That seems like the likely path this will take to me. Rather than the church fighting this (a liability) they will most likely just stop performing marriage ceremonies in temples, chapels, etc. and just stick will just doing sealings. I bet the church lawyers are already pushing this idea.

[Northwestcoug]

The change is very popular and a no-brainer for many situations. But it could have a lot of ramifications which could be seen as negative. Temple weddings might even phase out slowly over time. I can see why they struggled changing this.

I will take the arrows and agree with Applejack. If I had this option, I might have dragged my heels to have a garment-free marriage for as long as possible!

[Clark Addison]

I love this Twitter poster. So many good insights.

Embedded Tweet

It's awesome how some people use every change or doctrine as a new way to identify tares.

[Bo Diddley]

It's awesome how some people use every change or doctrine as a new way to identify tares.

Not some people--God!

[BigPiney]

Yes, I know I was neither prescient nor insightful, but I posted this in 2009:



A mere ten years later, nailed it.

SUwish!!!