I've heard a rumor recently and was wondering if anyone else has heard similar. Apparently, starting September 1st of this year the Mormon church is announcing that Mormon temple weddings will no longer be considered legally legit. Headquarters is going to announce that couples have to be married civilly first by someone with a legal license to marry and then get sealed in the temple after. I think it is because they are trying to avoid lawsuits from gay couples whom they won't let marry in their temples. They don't want to lose their money so they are removing all authority to legally marry any couples. What do you think?

you mean the way it is in other countries ?

Yes, but they are making it a church wide rule. So, it will be like that everywhere now.

If true this will drop the temple numbers even more!

I keep hearing that rumor. I assume the reasoning is so they could never be pressured to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I think it's very likely that in the next 18 months the courts will completely overturn state statutes preventing it, as with interracial marriage in the 1960s. I think churches are likely to retain the right to choose who they marry and where, though the discrimination charges against caterers and photographers who won't do gay weddings must have them a little worried. I can't see them giving up a terrific incentive to pay tithing without a more clear threat, like a legal change. But hey, I would love to see civil weddings that include the whole family AND fully legal gay marriage, so I hope both happen.

The church probably started this rumor themselves. They claim that, should gay marriage become legal and ignoring the fact that it is already legal many places, the "guvment" will force the church to marry gay couples in the temple. Ridiculous. Just more hate fueled paranoia.

If TSSC changes the rules to require a civil ceremony before temple sealing they might blame it on gays--they fear getting sued by gay couples they won't let marry in their temples. But it's not true, at all. It's just another way to promulgate hatred.

Think this through. If a gay couple could sue TSSC because TSSC won't let them "marry" in a temple, how would a civil ceremony solve the problem? Couldn't the gay couple sue to be sealed in the temple? The fact is, no couple, gay or straight, can sue a church to marry them under the auspices of the church. There is no right to sue, because there is no right to be married by a particular church. TSSC knows this full-well.

The issue is that TSSC's policy of temple-marriage--in which "unworthy" members of the couples' own families, including mom and dad, are excluded from the ceremony--has been drawing a lot of heat. There's no logical justification for it, considering some other countries require a government-endorsed wedding ceremony in order to legally qualify as marriage. In those countries, already the temple is sealing after civil marriage.

The public sees TSSC's current practice of temple-marriage as cruel and unnecessary. Even among TBMs, the practice causes conflict, heartache, and disappointment, and for no practical or doctrinal benefit, and it keeps some young couples out of the temple.

Yet, will TSSC ever admit it's been wrong about anything? Oh yeah, BY's racism 150 years after-the-fact. They need to change tack, and now, on this temple-marriage issue. It's like dead-dunking holocaust victims--it's no-win for TSSC. Great solution! Blame the gays. Then TSSC's not wrong, they're just protecting the precious church from lawsuits. These guys are hateful devils, really.

The idea that the cult will have to let gays marry in the temple is a big red herring. Think about it. How many Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish weddings take place in the temple? None. Have any Hindus, Muslims, or Jews ever sued for the right to marry in a mormon temple? No. Religious institutions, in the U.S. at least, are free to limit their ceremonies to members of their own religion.

Unsubstantiated rumor. I'll believe it when I see it or when evidence is presented.

And what self-respecting gay or lesbian couple would ever want to get married in an LDS temple?

I think they're killing two birds with one stone, getting around the gay question from critics, and appeasing the non LDS family members who can't attend temple weddings of their relatives.

I think it will be a fascinating cultural shift. Mormons have no idea how to throw a public wedding, and church gym receptions aren't a good parallel at all.

the church is no danger of being sued by gay couples to marry in temples. The first amendment protects the right of churches to marry who they please. But of course, the church spread that lie themselves during Prop 8, so they have to stand by it, I guess.

It won't happen. Ever. Weddings are their cash cow for getting members to have to catch up on back tithing to see family members married. If members married first outside (which is why the Cult is against it) how many of those non-tithe paying members (in name only) do you think will catch up on tithing to go witness a sealing when they have already seen the wedding?

As others said, religious institutions are not required to marry anyone they don't want to. Mormons are not required to marry a Catholic couple or an atheist couple if they said they wanted to be married in a temple, so why would they be required to marry a gay couple?

Fear-mongering started by the Cult itself on why members should be against gay marriage.

scarecrowfromoz is right.

There are a lot of members who remain just active enough to keep a temple recommend so they don't face the humiliation of being left outside while someone they love is getting married inside. "Just active enough" means they pay tithing.

If a couple has their parents and 4 other guests present at their wedding to make a party of ten and each person has paid 10% of their income (let's use an average of $30k/year)....that means TSCC has raked in $30k just for that 1/2 hour event.

It's a cash cow. They'll never give it up.

It's a regular topic in "letters to the editor" and it gets frequent mention on baby center etc. This is an issue in the heart of Mormondom. There are enough dissidents who are now willing to vocalize on this topic that the cult has to be feeling the heat. Sooner or later the extortion returns will be outweighed by bigger threats of disaffection.

I agree that the blame it on gays is nothing but a smoke screen. Probably the invention of a TBM who is scrambling to find an acceptable reason for their precious church to change the policy.

I agree. I don't know if it will ever happen, but if they want to make a change they need an excuse. They'll "reluctantly" make the change while at the same time claiming that their religious liberties are being attacked, it's a sign of the second coming, etc... and TBM's will cling even more tightly to the church.

I agree. NEVER. TSCC gets too much money from this horrible, arbitrary, not-from-God rule. My wedding cost my parents many thousands of dollars--oh not for the food for the guests, not the honeymoon, dress, music, venue. This money was extorted from them by the LDS cult. My husband beat me, and the temple marriage lasted only a few months.

The Mormon cult's greatest weapon is "The Family." Along with that family pressure for a temple wedding, goes the cruel gossip, judgments and speculation that a couple must endure if they get married civilly. I've heard it all: The bride is pregnant, they are morally unworthy, they and their families are on their way to becoming apostates, Suki chose her family in Japan over The Church, bla-bla. Mormons are "as the armies of Helaman" to win all these self-proclaimed battles with Satan. The cult wants to dominate everything from birth to death to weddings to weekends with the family.

The cult will NEVER give up a cash cow.

...helped them defeat the ERA back in the day.

I think it would be a GREAT idea although it sounds like just a rumor.

If couples got married in a civil ceremony first there wouldn't be so much pressure to go on to the temple. One could always find an excuse, a way out, to not go to temple. There could be unexpected last minute problems like Uncle Fred having a heart attack or Aunt Betsy missed the plane. As a friend once told me, the REAL wedding would always be the first wedding that EVERYONE can attend. I don't think LDS, Inc. is ready to concede that until absolutely necessary. It would make a temple wedding superfluous.

Oh No! They might have S-E-X before being sealed in the temple. Horrors!

Uh oh! We've got trouble!! Gotta make sure the parents are sealed first before doing the deed!!

The marriage ceremony -- ANY ceremony -- was never "legal". As far as the states are concerned, it's the paperwork and signatures that marry you, which is why people can be legally married without any ceremony, and why there is no need for a divorce ceremony. It's just that ministers are given authority by the state to sign marriage licenses.

Actually, this might not be the case. I have a friend who in the last couple of weeks tried and expected to be married by only signing the paperwork. Instead, the couple were told they must have the marriage "solemnized" as well. They did this with a judge a couple of days later when they could get an appointment.

This is the case in the state in which I was married. The marriage license needs to be signed and then filed with the state. Of course, you don't need a minister, ceremony, etc... A notary can sign it for you.

There isn't really a "legal" license for marrying people and it doesn't have to be done civily to make it legal. I've performed many marriages with my trusty online certificate and never have I showed it to anyone or been required to file a copy at the courthouse.

The only thing that matters is filing the license at the courthouse. That is what makes it legal. They don't really care about your religious credentials from a legal stand point. Of course some states may vary, requiring proof of what ever credentuals you have.

Your certificate of ordination is what allows you to perform the wedding that makes it legal. The details about who is eligible to perform legal weddings varies by state. You, as the clergyperson, have to sign the license, and then the couple is responsible for filing it with the courthouse. I am baffled that you claim first that there is no "legal" license, and then acknowledge that there is.

Of course its your certificate, signing the license and filing it that makes it legal.

What I mean is, there basically is no legality to being able to marry people. Anyone can get a certificate on line and legally marry people....if no one ois checking, you don't really even need that. The point is, a temple marriage is just as "legal" as a civil marriage. You would not have to get a civil marriage first to then get a temple marriage that is legal. I think the OP is bunk, that's all.

I hope that clarifies my post.

Could someone please name me a country, any country, where churches have been required to marry gay couples after marriage equality was introduced? (With the exception of some of Denmark's state-subsidised churches).

Has any state started to insist that orthodox Rabbis marry Jews and non-Jews? That the Catholics allow remarriage after divorce?

Nope. Religions are allowed to go their own sweet way.

Though I love the idea of a state official pitching up at the door of a radical fundamentalist mosque and insisting the imam marries a couple of guys.

When the Mormon semi-annual General Conference approaches, some on RFM like to gaze into their prophetic crystal ball and speculate as to what (if any) will be the big news coming from the pulpit of the great and spacious building in SLC. For fun, we at RFM like to follow the prophet Joe Junior who on one occasion admonished the saints to stretch our minds and contemplate the highest heaven and look into the deepest abyss in order to commune with God.

So in that spirit, I did just that and on April 4, 2014 a "hypothetical" talk was posted to RFM for the upcoming General Conference in SLC. The link was: Saturday’s GC ANNOUNCEMENT by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, see http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1227992,1227992#msg-1227992

In the OP it read: "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."

Mormons are experts at passing off hypothetical stories or fiction as fact or evidence or truth (i.e. The First Vision, the Book of Mormon and translation, the Book of Abraham, or the Restoration of the Priesthood, etc.). Joe Junior was an expert at getting people to believe a rumor or fictional book as a true enterprise. Mormons are (imo) some of the most gullible folks on the planet.

Maybe a rumor was started based on the afore-referenced hypothetical talk?

You mean that the morg started this rumor and not the other way around!!???

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2014 03:12PM by virgil.

I don't see this happening. The church makes a LOT of money off of parents / relatives wanting to see their child / love ones married. Paying back tithing brings in a lot of money for tscc.