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
    Yes they have been okay with recognizing civil unions, they don't want them to be marriages.
    Have any of the leaders been willing to put that "in writing" so to speak? I think the Catholics have been doing similar for a while, but to have the pope captured on video seems significant.

    Comment


    • Although it's no longer deemed "apostasy," gay coupling in whatever legal form is still deemed a "serious transgression." Such unions are no longer subject to Church discipline, but other than that, I don't think there's been any change in the Church's historical position. I'd love to be shown that I'm wrong here.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
        Although it's no longer deemed "apostasy," gay coupling in whatever legal form is still deemed a "serious transgression." Such unions are no longer subject to Church discipline, but other than that, I don't think there's been any change in the Church's historical position. I'd love to be shown that I'm wrong here.
        i think you are right. the church has only supported the legalization of civil unions for gay couples. doesn't change anything in terms of how the church views them within the church.
        I'm like LeBron James.
        -mpfunk

        Comment


        • If the pope is not only endorsing civil unions but also signalling that the church will recognize them, then that's a big deal. I didn't see that definitively in the article.
          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
          - SeattleUte

          Comment


          • To clarify, my view, which I cannot stress enough is probably wrong, is regarding the church's stance on the state's recognition of same-sex civil unions (that they were fine with it).

            I agree with PAC on the church's view of individual unions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Clark Addison View Post
              To clarify, my view, which I cannot stress enough is probably wrong, is regarding the church's stance on the state's recognition of same-sex civil unions (that they were fine with it).

              I agree with PAC on the church's view of individual unions.
              My understanding is that after Prop 8, the Church said that it did not oppose extending some rights associated with marriage to gay couples in a civil union (things like hospital visitation, insurance, etc.). But they did not support civil unions that were equivalent to marriage in every way except the label.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                My understanding is that after Prop 8, the Church said that it did not oppose extending some rights associated with marriage to gay couples in a civil union (things like hospital visitation, insurance, etc.). But they did not support civil unions that were equivalent to marriage in every way except the label.
                I'd like to read that if you have a citation. If it's informal policy, that's fine, but not as useful. Having the written statement helps clarify when I'm having discussions with my less socially aware family/ward/stake members.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                  I'd like to read that if you have a citation. If it's informal policy, that's fine, but not as useful. Having the written statement helps clarify when I'm having discussions with my less socially aware family/ward/stake members.
                  There's this, from the Deseret News, where Elder Clayton said that the Church doesn't generally oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships:

                  Elder Clayton said he does expect there will be "challenges of one kind or another to the decision" in California, but can't anticipate what they will be or how the church would respond.

                  He said in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign.
                  https://www.deseret.com/2008/11/6/20...city-wednesday

                  But then here, in 2006, Elder Wickman said they do oppose giving the same bundle of rights to gay couples, regardless of what you call it:

                  PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

                  ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

                  As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.
                  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist...der-attraction

                  So it seems like the position changed, or a new position was taken, sometime between 2006 and 2008. Adoption seems to have been one of the sticking points.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                    There's this, from the Deseret News, where Elder Clayton said that the Church doesn't generally oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships:
                    Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • Yet another small step toward the church getting out of the marriage business...

                      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.”
                      https://www.thechurchnews.com/temple...-temple-214221

                      Now we all can talk amongst ourselves about if the couple was actually temple worthy or not.
                      "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                      "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                      "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
                        Yet another small step toward the church getting out of the marriage business...


                        https://www.thechurchnews.com/temple...-temple-214221

                        Now we all can talk amongst ourselves about if the couple was actually temple worthy or not.
                        Eh, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of sealings that were done in the temple. I'd wager most folks weren't even aware it was an option, because it required both bride and groom to have deceased sealed spouses.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post

                          Eh, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of sealings that were done in the temple. I'd wager most folks weren't even aware it was an option, because it required both bride and groom to have deceased sealed spouses.
                          I was just thinking about this. Always thought it was a little odd.
                          τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post

                            Eh, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of sealings that were done in the temple. I'd wager most folks weren't even aware it was an option, because it required both bride and groom to have deceased sealed spouses.
                            My uncle might have upped the statistics a bit. After my aunt died early, he did the sealing for time thing. Twice. His third wife died a couple of years ago. He might have done it a third time if it were still offered.
                            "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                            "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                            - SeattleUte

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post

                              Eh, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of sealings that were done in the temple. I'd wager most folks weren't even aware it was an option, because it required both bride and groom to have deceased sealed spouses.
                              Not entirely true. My dad (divorced; still sealed to my mom, technically) was sealed for time only to my stepmom, a widow. But maybe there were changes between their time-only marriage and today that I'm not aware of.
                              Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

                              "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post

                                Eh, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of sealings that were done in the temple. I'd wager most folks weren't even aware it was an option, because it required both bride and groom to have deceased sealed spouses.
                                I was aware of time-only marriages in the temple, but I can't think of anyone I know got one.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X