Given the rumors that the LDS church will soon disband performing civil/legal unions in its temples, and that it has taken a trouncing in the political arena and media for its opposition to gay marriage, one can predict the official announcement of disbanding civil unions in the temple.

One statement I expect to see will go like:

"The Church has always recognized that temple sealings are based on God's laws and that civil unions were a necessary duty to uphold the laws. At the initiation of sealings, performing civil unions on the frontiers of the Mormon migration west until they reach Utah was left to church officials. Accordingly, these were combined with temple sealings for convenience. With expanded availability of officials who have legal authority to preform civil marriages, and due to increased costs and legal process, in order to save money and time, it is no longer necessary for the legal union to be performed in the temple."

Nothing will be said about gay marriage or perhaps even directly about the requests of non-member family presence at sealings.

What's your prediction?

Whatever they say, the TBM zombies will view it as revelation.

I think you've about covered it, except they'll add something about making policies uniform, like they did when they dropped the mission age for young men to 18, regardless of location.

"To bring United States, Canada, and other countries into conformity with existing Church policy in Europe and other areas, all couples, regardless of location, who wish to be sealed in the temple will now first have civil marriage ceremonies performed by locally authorized officials. Couples will then be able to have temple sealings performed after a brief waiting period. The policy will now be uniform across all areas of the world, eliminating confusion and making the eternal blessings of the temple available to all who desire them."

They'll make it look like they're just simplifying and making the policy the same everywhere. I'd also bet the announcement won't include any references to ceremonies held at local ward and stake buildings -- those will be quietly eliminated a few months down the road, with an announcement likely read in SM. They'll say something about reserving church buildings for worship and auxiliary meetings only, or maybe insurance issues or safety concerns. That way, there won't be any possible lawsuits about same-sex couples wanting to marry in their neighborhood Mormon chapel (goodness knows why they'd want to anyway, but it could happen).

Political expediency = Mormon revelation from god & jesus.

It's always been the case.

Or so it seems to me...

I think that you nailed it - why don't you work for the church's PR department? Or do you? ;)

Down the memory hole we go...

I think icedtea is closer to what they will say, though both announcements are fluent Mo-speak.

I still think it has little or nothing to do same-sex marriage, and much to do with not permanently insulting family and friends who don't have recommends, especially non-mormon relatives. RFMers have been lobbying for this for years, notably Jean Bodie of Edmonton, Alberta. She spoke about it at several RFM conferences, and sounded hopeful.

Ok, then. Looks like she was right.

The decision to do this was made many months, if not years ago. They had no idea at the time how the SCOTUS was going to proceed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 02:40PM by Brother Of Jerry.

To be read at all local ward and branches and be disseminated to the media:

As the church continues to grown at at unheralded pace, it is important for the correlation committee, under the supervision of the first presidency to standardize practices.

In the same way, the first presidency works diligently to apply the same standards across the globe.

Due to the changing marriage laws across the world (or indumea) and the number of question from the local leadership (2), the church would like to clarify that the temple sealing and a marriage ceremony are not, nor have they ever been the same.

The church, for the convenience of the couples being sealed has, in the past, offered marriages in the temple.

The first presidency has counseled that only a temple sealing will guarantee the participant the glory and blessings reserved for those who chose to follow the lord by being sealed for all eternity his house.

We warn that members are not to look up on the internet that the reason for the original ceremony was only for men, so they could enter into polygamy. Remember that Satan, awaits to deceive you by teaching you the doctrines of the church and church history.

We are saddened that the opponents of the church see this as a reversal of doctrine, when it is a mere clarification that will better aid local leaders across the globe as they struggle to handle all the baptisms that "the hastening" has produced.

We hope that you will continue to exclude family members that are not full tithe payers from this and other family and social events. We also invite you to not have sex after your civil ceremony so that you may receive the full blessings of being controlled by the church.

Signed,

The First Presidency

"Separating the legal civil marriage from the temple sealing will allow couples to appropriately focus on this religiously significant rite free from the stress of other wedding events [as well the anticipation of having sex for the first time and the burden of knowing that they have broken the hearts of the unworthy people who love them]."


But they are denying any change is taking place:

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."

If this happens, I welcome the change. I have been saying (for years) that religion should get out of the civil marriage/union business. Make the religious part of the bonding ritual a blessing/sealing/celebration - whatever.

Equality and freedom of religion are both (equally) protected. If a religious official has the ability to join two people in a civil contract, they should be civilly forced to not discriminate.

If a religious official wishes to reserve services or facilities for blessings/sealings/celebrations for people that identify with their belief system only, than that is their right under the law.

You can't uphold both equality and religious freedom unless you separate the two activities. I hate to say it, but in this case and if it indeed looks like the above, TSCC is spot on.

President Monson will take the sacred seer stone out of the vault and put it in his hat and stick his face in it and out of the darkness the spiritual light will shine and a new revelation will be given forth unto the people. Yea, verily.

So it looks like the 600+ comments about Temple Marriage being discontinued in the Peggy Slack article in the Salt Lake Tribune, just disappeared down the memory hole with the new formatting. How convenient is that? Didn't want anyone's opinion before a revelation anyway.

I thought it was a plot by ALEC to do away with all the comments ripping on the Republicans. I reposted some of my one-liners nevertheless.

Sorry, I've been watching some Glenn Beck videos--strictly for research for a comedy piece--and sometimes the paranoia is infectious.

It has its upside, however. I also posted some "slightly IRL" stuff in a tribute to another person, and I'm thinking it's not a bad thing that one got nuked.

No more virgins across the alter?! No more first kisses when you get married in the temple?! We have to watch people who have saved themselves for temple marriage getting married after you know they got busy right after whatever ceremony took place earlier that day/week/month?! Damn you liberals!

The young women leaders are going to have to come up with some new imaginary goals to set for these poor kids.

As noted, I'm a technical Nevermo with "historian tendencies," and during our lunch at the ExMormon Conference ('Twas a miracle! We had "both RFM Jesuses" in attendance!), I complimented Will Bagley on a bit of really insightful analysis he made about the Woodruff Manifesto which was supposed to eliminate polygamy doctrinally. Of course the Smoot hearings happened a few years later, and we saw "The Second Manifesto."

Will noted that Woodrfuff was absolutely convinced that the Second Coming was imminent; he even corrected me when I said "a few years," saying it was actually only "a few months."

So the fourth LDS President didn't think it was that big of a deal to tell the Saints to follow the law of the land.

Of course, Jesus has apparently got Himself stuck in celestial traffic somewhere, and after a few years, all of the women in the church pretty much wound up violently opposed to the practice--there were exceptions, of course--and the church had to move in the direction of opposing it.

I think this offers some interesting historical perspectives, and I'll go out on a limb with this one, which will also address the complaints of non-members/non-TR holders being excluded from Temple Weddings.

Okay, I'm not one to issue prophecies (I can't have people thinking I'm another Christopher Nemelka; it's bad enough when I haven't had enough sleep after a night behind the wheel), but here's what I think will happen.

The venue for "civil marriages" will be moved to the local ward houses, and bishops will be permitted to officiate.

Temple sealings, endowments, etc. will follow as in the past.

(And a Cabbie note to the church spies reading this: If the guys in #47 East South Temple haven't thought of that one, feel free to pass it on, and I won't expect credit. I kind of think, though, that some are smart enough to have thought of this all by themselves. At least I hope so)

I'm basing this prediction on the fact that one of my sisters was married years ago in a civil ceremony conducted by a bishop (in the bar in the old Ambassador Club if anyone is intersted; my "heretic geneaology" runs deep).

You folks doing the janitor jobs in the church can expect an uptick in the number of your duties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 07:55PM by SL Cabbie.

I predict remodeling to accommodate a center aisle in ward houses.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, I hate the fact that they take so much control over a major life event. My little sister is newly engaged and planning a wedding and I hate the fact that the rumors about this are probably messing with her head about what she "should" be wishing for, for her own wedding! Should she be dreaming of getting married in my little room in the temple, knowing that the majority of her family can't go, but doing it anyway because "it's what's right", or will she have to completely reorganize her mind because they decided to change the rules that have been shoved down her throat her whole life and now she has to wish about a traditional wedding and then figure out when to run to the temple in the middle of an already busy day to do a second ceremony??

I personally don't really care about not being in the room, I think it's dumb, but it's not about me. I just hate how they have hijacked all these girls wishes for their own weddings and now this is screwing with what they have been told to wish for! (While I spent my whole childhood not impressed with the idea of temple marriage and horrified by the idea of a cap sleeved wedding dress that to me just looks like a glorified t shirt. Good thing I got married to an awesome guy outside in a gorgeous garden, in a designer strapless dress, and had everyone in my family there. Oh and I have pictures to prove it, unlike a temple wedding lol)