Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Church pulling out of the marriage business

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I've seen like of angry responses to this article. I haven't read it and don't anticipate that I will read it. Ex-mo life is so much happier if you just stop paying attention.
    Ding ding!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

    Comment


    • Seems like the Church is clamping down on the who and when of marriage officiating. Effective immediately, either the bride or the groom has to be a member of the unit where the officiant presides. This used to be the case for performing marriages for members of the church, but marriages could be performed for non-members without that condition. Now, it seems that performing marriages for non-members are going away.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post
        Seems like the Church is clamping down on the who and when of marriage officiating. Effective immediately, either the bride or the groom has to be a member of the unit where the officiant presides. This used to be the case for performing marriages for members of the church, but marriages could be performed for non-members without that condition. Now, it seems that performing marriages for non-members are going away.
        That's odd. On the other hand, I guess it is nice to reduce the load for overworked bishops.
        "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
        "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
        "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

        Comment


        • Just seems weird - I'm trying to figure out what problem they are working on solving with this. I'm sure there is one - I doubt they were just sitting around one day and one of the brethren said, "You know what I think?", and then threw out the policy.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
            Just seems weird - I'm trying to figure out what problem they are working on solving with this. I'm sure there is one - I doubt they were just sitting around one day and one of the brethren said, "You know what I think?", and then threw out the policy.
            I’m a bit of a cynic so my gut is telling me they are trying to avoid potential conflicts with bishops being asked to perform gay marriages. Or maybe that was already outlawed?


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Moliere View Post

              I’m a bit of a cynic so my gut is telling me they are trying to avoid potential conflicts with bishops being asked to perform gay marriages.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
              You don’t have to be much of a cynic to guess that was the motive, with Lebowski’s reasoning being a fringe benefit.
              "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

              Comment


              • My friend's daughter was married a little over a year ago. She'd moved to Elko, where she met her future spouse. Moved her records there because she was living there - but she wanted her long-time Bishop in Utah to marry her when the time came. The entire family aside from her was living in Utah. She nor her fiance were ready for the temple at that point.

                So - the choices were - the entire family goes to Elko for her to be married by a bishop that she barely knows and the rest of the family doesn't know. Or - she comes to Utah to be married by the guy who was her bishop for 3 years before she moved and who the entire family knows. She came to Utah and was married by the guy she knows.

                With this policy change - I'm assuming she still would've been married in Utah. It just would've been by someone grabbing an online certificate making them a pastor. Seems like maybe they're trying to force people's hands to engage with their local bishop. And it may work with some - with others, it's just going to push them further away. They'll go from at least having an LDS-themed wedding presided over by an LDS priesthood authority to having something completely non-LDS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                  My friend's daughter was married a little over a year ago. She'd moved to Elko, where she met her future spouse. Moved her records there because she was living there - but she wanted her long-time Bishop in Utah to marry her when the time came. The entire family aside from her was living in Utah. She nor her fiance were ready for the temple at that point.

                  So - the choices were - the entire family goes to Elko for her to be married by a bishop that she barely knows and the rest of the family doesn't know. Or - she comes to Utah to be married by the guy who was her bishop for 3 years before she moved and who the entire family knows. She came to Utah and was married by the guy she knows.

                  With this policy change - I'm assuming she still would've been married in Utah. It just would've been by someone grabbing an online certificate making them a pastor. Seems like maybe they're trying to force people's hands to engage with their local bishop. And it may work with some - with others, it's just going to push them further away. They'll go from at least having an LDS-themed wedding presided over by an LDS priesthood authority to having something completely non-LDS.
                  I don’t fully disagree. But take for instance my own sealing/wedding. I didn’t know the sealer and had no personal connection to him before, during or after the ceremony. I only remember his name because it was a famous name (he’s not famous but someone else famous had a similar name). It would have been to cool to be married by someone I knew better, but I honestly didn’t care.

                  If I had to guess, I’d imagine this policy is more to at least put some parameters around who and where bishops can marry people so they can avoid having to drive or fly distances to appease people like in your scenario. Bishops have enough crap to shovel and now they are being asked to perform a lot more marriages than they used to do. I’d also wager the church just wants some control, albeit for no apparent reason.

                  Also, sealers in the temple are only allowed to seal people in the specific temple they are assigned to unless it’s for a direct descendant. My dad is a dealer in the Draper temple so he can seal anyone that wants to be marrried in that temple. But he can only seal someone in a. Different temple if they are a direct descendant. So he will be able to seal my kids in any temple if they so choose, but he can’t seal nephews or nieces or other people unless it’s in Draper.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                  "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                  Comment


                  • We've had the same with my FiL - he sealed all of his grandkids up until he died last year. Sealers are a different story - they only perform marriages in the temple and I don't think they can even do the civil ceremony, can they?

                    I agree with what you're saying about bishops traveling - to a point. But look at the other side, if families really are asking bishops to travel long distances for civil ceremonies. Now, instead of families getting their own bishop to marry their kids, or bishops marrying the kids of friends - instead you'll have bishops of singles wards on the hook for all of these kids who may have gone home to their parents' bishop under the old policy.

                    I'm not sure how many civil ceremonies LDS bishops are performing on average. I'm sure it's gone up somewhat with the changes around temples and waiting, etc. But I suspect it's still relatively rare. When I've been in a bishopric, I've been aware of the bishop performing 1-2 a year at the very most. Often none. I am curious how that may have changed - and how much more frequent they are. I don't think the new policies have been in place long enough to know the real impact - particularly when combined with the pandemic over the last year.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Moliere View Post

                      I don’t fully disagree. But take for instance my own sealing/wedding. I didn’t know the sealer and had no personal connection to him before, during or after the ceremony. I only remember his name because it was a famous name (he’s not famous but someone else famous had a similar name). It would have been to cool to be married by someone I knew better, but I honestly didn’t care.

                      If I had to guess, I’d imagine this policy is more to at least put some parameters around who and where bishops can marry people so they can avoid having to drive or fly distances to appease people like in your scenario. Bishops have enough crap to shovel and now they are being asked to perform a lot more marriages than they used to do. I’d also wager the church just wants some control, albeit for no apparent reason.

                      Also, sealers in the temple are only allowed to seal people in the specific temple they are assigned to unless it’s for a direct descendant. My dad is a dealer in the Draper temple so he can seal anyone that wants to be marrried in that temple. But he can only seal someone in a. Different temple if they are a direct descendant. So he will be able to seal my kids in any temple if they so choose, but he can’t seal nephews or nieces or other people unless it’s in Draper.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                      I always thought the stories I heard about apostate members in Draper were made up or exaggerated.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Moliere View Post

                        I don’t fully disagree. But take for instance my own sealing/wedding. I didn’t know the sealer and had no personal connection to him before, during or after the ceremony. I only remember his name because it was a famous name (he’s not famous but someone else famous had a similar name). It would have been to cool to be married by someone I knew better, but I honestly didn’t care.

                        If I had to guess, I’d imagine this policy is more to at least put some parameters around who and where bishops can marry people so they can avoid having to drive or fly distances to appease people like in your scenario. Bishops have enough crap to shovel and now they are being asked to perform a lot more marriages than they used to do. I’d also wager the church just wants some control, albeit for no apparent reason.

                        Also, sealers in the temple are only allowed to seal people in the specific temple they are assigned to unless it’s for a direct descendant. My dad is a dealer in the Draper temple so he can seal anyone that wants to be marrried in that temple. But he can only seal someone in a. Different temple if they are a direct descendant. So he will be able to seal my kids in any temple if they so choose, but he can’t seal nephews or nieces or other people unless it’s in Draper.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                        Emeritus GAs retain their sealing privileges in all temples of the world. One of the few differences between an emeritus GA and a regular joe member.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                          My dad is a dealer in the Draper temple so he can seal anyone that wants to be marrried in that temple.
                          Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
                          I always thought the stories I heard about apostate members in Draper were made up or exaggerated.
                          Live look at Moliere's dad in the Draper temple:

                          QSwXL2Bnw8WLXOadKKmEo6encwatNlpdaNANoMEL3apXCcJ-EppXOFSEqWXT-WiQ6Ty50oj86w67x7luGRElqZfhzRlaQ37059a7kBZKIIeFlZcxjPrJWGch3kTDXc1cAmIETtSP.jpg
                          "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
                          - Goatnapper'96

                          Comment


                          • When I got married I asked the temple presidency if my grandfather could do the sealing. They told me that I would need permission from the first presidency. That turned out not to be a problem.
                            τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by All-American View Post
                              When I got married I asked the temple presidency if my grandfather could do the sealing. They told me that I would need permission from the first presidency. That turned out not to be a problem.
                              I'm like LeBron James.
                              -mpfunk

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X