The press conference by TSCC today got me thinking about some of the scare tactics I have heard used. About a year ago, before my family and I left the cult, my in-laws came home from a stake conference which we did not attend, and started going on about how they were being told that if gay marriage is legalized then TSCC will be forced to allow gay marriages in the temple. This is absolutely ludicrous, and just added to our doubts about TSCC. Apparently the whole stake conference was geared toward generating hysteria about gay marriage in the members, because my in-laws were pissed when we defended it. What I don't understand is that gay marriage hurts nobody in the TSCC. If TSCC does not consider a marriage valid, then why does it even matter to them? Not to mention it is none of thier business. Point is, gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people getting married. Gay people already live together, what does the TSCC care if they get a legal document that TSCC doesn't recognize anyway? In my opinion, the bigotry of TSCC is doing them major PR damage, which we know they hate, so I don't understand what they feel the need to resist gay marriage so much, unless there is money at risk, like losing tax-exempt status of some of their business entities or LDS, Inc as a whole.

It is such a lie and they know it. Gay marriage in the temple? The only way that happens is if enough Mormons get tired of the homophobia, just like they got tired of the racism.

How many blacks were married in the temple before 1978? How many interracial couples? How many Catholics and Jews have been married in LDS temples?

You can't even force your way into the temple as a members unless you pass the Bishop and SP interviews. What makes them think some lawyer is going to force gays upon them?

They fear social pressure far more than legal pressure. The US govt isn't going to send the national guard to integrate LDS services. What will harm them is negative PR and the view that they are hateful bigots, but the government can't do anything about that.

I agree, so I think they must be really nervous about something if they are willing to tarnish their public image over this. Gotta be about money or something, this move just seems very desperate.

What's funny about this and the fear is that I met a gay Mormon several years ago, and he wanted to marry whomever would be his husband in the temple. Go figure.

Is it really ridiculous that TSCC could be forced to conduct gay sealings in the temple? I call it a "sealing" because it is nothing like a real wedding that normal people have.

In the press conference they said that they couldn't change their scriptures, but where in the scriptures does it say that homosexuality is a sin not punishable by stoning?

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter where it is taking place. If discrimination is illegal then it SHOULD apply to the mormon temple, just like it should apply to tennis clubs or any other private group. The only reason that the law isn't heading down that path is because religions like TSCC are still coming to terms with facts that everyone else has known for a long time, such as: masturbation doesn't lead to homosexuality. It has to be baby steps for people with that level of mental dis-functionality.

I think that they need to learn the difference between legal and religious proceedings. Marriage is a legal act, and can't be discriminated against. Private groups, including religions and the KKK can do whatever they want, but they can't expect to not have any repercussions or public shaming. The thing TSCC doesn't get is that if you give the government the power to take away someone else's rights, you also open yourself up to have your rights taken away if the moral majority doesn't like what you do. They can't have it both ways and try to hide behind religious beliefs.

Can't change their scriptures! Heheh. Good one.

There are some that could argue that a Mormon temple marriage is not valid because it is not performed by a trained member of the clergy or a judge or other civil servant with the power to marry.
So it's ironic that they are so concerned about gays getting married in their temple.

My take is they have a fear of normalizing gay marriage. They are afraid that they will teach it in schools, and it will infiltrate their society. They want to isolate their children from ideas that are contrary to mormonism and do the same ole thing they have been doing since the beginning, control the minds of the sheep.

Another idea is that the church needs an adversary in the flesh. You can only demonize Satan if there are worldly manifestations of evil. They are supposed to combat evil and will be judged unfavorably if they don't do something to stop it.

TSCC seems to be either guided by their fear or using it as a tool at all times. Isn't that what they use every Sunday? Just pick a topic. (HT, tithing, temple attendance, FHE). I don't miss the fear and associated guilt at all.

I agree, they've got a fear of normalizing gay marriage. Making it legal does normalize it--and that train's left the station. You may as well fear the sun's coming up in the morning.

If a legally married gay couple happen to be mormons, how would the church react if they wanted to be active in the church? Wanted a temple recommend? Would the couple be excommunicated?

Why would a gay couple do this? What better way to prove the church's announcement is just a PR stunt. I can see this coming back to bite the church's butt in the court of social media.

The Church would most likely excommunicate them if legally married. Definately no temple recommend.

The only way a gay person would be accepted is if they agreed to remain unmarried,celibate and self-loathing,constantly licking the boot of their opressor and then any acceptance would only be minimal.

Excommunicating such a couple wouldn't make the church look good, especially if it made the national news. Bad PR.

I've wondered .... do Bps / SPs verify the gender of a prospective spouse now?


say in a case where they've met online with a wide geographic separation...

they go to their 'leaders' separately & get a TR endorsed for a sealing. one might even cross-dress (appearance) & go to the temple....


'sooner or later'?

New Subject in the CHI, That's for sure!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2015 01:50PM by GNPE.

It happened all the time until Brigham Young ended it. I can't prove male to male sealings were gay sealings, however, no one can prove they weren't.

Interestingly, in the early days of Christianity MF marriages could be performed anywhere, but MM marriages had to be performed in a church. Also, according to BY in JofD, the sealing of man to woman / women could be performed in the Endowment House but Man / Man sealings had to wait for the dedication of a temple. Interesting!

My understanding is that these sealings were more like an older man adopting a son. That there was nothing gay about it.

I get stuff like this from Mormons on my Facebook feed all the time. The crazy part is how many Mormons actually believe that legalizing gay marriage will force the church to perform gay marriages in their temples.

The church currently excludes all sorts of "unworthy" people from its temples for a variety of reasons, not just those who are gay. You can't even enter the temple if you're heterosexual and enjoy an occasional cup of coffee or can't part with 10 percent of your income. Legalizing gay marriage isn't going to change anything. The church will still be as exclusive as it wants.

Ask you relatives if they really believe any Bishop and Stake Prez would give Temple recommends for marriage to a Same Sex Couple?

If they think so then maybe they have something to worry about.

Reality is that most active mormons don't even qualify so why would they begin to think a gay couple could?

The only actual same sex couple I know was from Bountiful, Utah and Bruce Jensen still maintains he did not know his "wife" was really Felix Urioste - a man. He and the man he thought was a woman, Leasa Jenson - lived together as husband and wife and were sealed in the Salt Lake Temple as such. NO ONE at any level, from Relief Society leadership in the Bountiful Ward to the Stake President to the Temple workers even suspected 'she' was a 'he'.

Friends who still live in the ward and stake won't say anything about it and are embarassed as hell and still get pissed if you bring it up.

I had totally forgotten about Jensen and Urioste!

Wow!

I looked up an early DN article on the story of Jensen and Urioste.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/429217/URIOSTE-DENIES-HE-DUPED-AND-BILKED-HIS-HUSBAND.html?pg=all

The temple operates like a private country club - you have to pay exorbitant dues to be a member of the club - 10% of your annual income.

If the McTemples operated like a pay for business thing - like some Christian religious ministers charge a fee to perform a wedding ceremony in public - then they might be fair game.

But because of the rules for getting into the temple, and that it's not open to the public, like an exclusive country club only members who have paid their dues get to go in.

This whole hysteria of ministers being forced to marry couples against their religious beliefs is overblown - except for those ministers who marry other couples in the public sphere (at a hotel ballroom, for instance, or at a fancy restaurant) and who charge a fee for the service.

Ministers who marry couples without fee for service are probably safe.

And the entire issue would be moot if government kicked religion out of what's already been a too-cozy relationship of church and state to begin with: stop using priests, ministers, etc, as legal officiants. Let the couple get their marriage license at the courthouse which means they are legally married in the government's eyes.

If they want a religious or big celebratory ceremony with a live band and lots of guests, etc, that can be done separately by any officiant of their choosing. But that officiant - unless he is a civil servant with the power to do so - does not legally marry them at the party. Getting religion out of the business of officiating and putting the government's stamp of legitimacy on civil marriage would be a step in the right direction, IMO.

The Mormon church already *doesn't* marry an awful lot of people in the temple. Therefore, the Mormon church must not be much in favor of marriage.

Just sayin'.