I have a lip service tbm mother who ahs always described herself as a christian and a Mormon.She has always drunk tea and coffee and vodka at times and never really been attending church long enough to hold any calling.Yet she has always gone around trying to evangelize people to the church.

She first met missionaires in 1974 who told her she could not be baptized because she only had her maiden name changed through a deedpole process.That is going to a registry to have her surname changed to Mrs Hunt due to my fathers surname being Hunt.She had no formal wedding or ceremony because the relationship was not warm and stable.The deedpole process is a legal term used in Britain and Commonwealth nations and not the United Sates.
So the mishies were not allowed to baptize her and she claims that was the reason.

Was is the current policy in dealing with this issue?If it has changed,it ironically means god has changed his mind and think unmarried de facto couples or one of them is not a sinner like before and can be baptized.

I'm not in the circle of policies/decisions similar to this myself, but there seems to be some division between live-in bf/gf situations & common-law (long term) marriages.


My 2nd wife told me she had to end a live-in FWB situation to join TSCC... but now we're Both Out!

Yes, unless it's changed recently, you have to be leagally/lawfully married.

If you have a defacto relationship, it's considered fornication.

I remember a young fellow when I was a mishi who's girlfriend (about 16) didn't take the sacrament and came from a tbm family. But as I remember there wasn't a question that said "Have you fornicated" so he went through the loops and he was worthy where his girlfriend was not. We wondered if they were doing the big nasty, but she may have been loose before him and he may have still been a virgin. I don't know? Anyway it was confusing at the time and I didn't ask questions.

So if it's confusing enough and the mishies are ignorant enough then yes the church probably does baptize these people.

I was in California in 95 to 97 and me and my companion tracted into a family that had been together for about 10 years. The husband and wife were never married but had a child together. The child at the time was 9 years old.

The wife and husband had to get married before the wife was baptized. The ceremony was done by the bishop in their front room.
The husband did not join

We've heard stories on this board that in Brazil, exceptions are often made. In Brazil, it is evidently difficult or impossible to get a divorce. So Brazillians just move out and on to their next partner.

In Brazil in the 1960s, divorce was not legal, though formal legal separations were. If a couple was legally separated from former spouse, and living together in a family-like relationship, and would marry if they were permitted to, they could be baptized. They did have to be interviewed by mission president, but that was largely a formality. I never knew of any couples that were turned down at that stage.

Thanks for the clarification. I see that divorce became legal in Brazil in 1977. In Argentina, after a long struggle, divorce was legalized for good in 1987. In Chile, it was 2004.

From "On This Day in Mormon History"

Apr 2, 1959 - First temple meeting apostle Spencer W. Kimball
attends since his return from touring missions in South
America. He emphasizes to First Presidency and Twelve the
special problem in Latin America's "Catholic countries [where]
divorce could not be obtained" and "some set up new households
without legal sanction. . . .When such people wished to join
the [LDS] Church the missionaries would not baptize them, since
technically they lived in adultery." Kimball’s authorized
biography notes that he successfully persuaded First Presidency
to adopt policy that "such couples could be baptized if they
showed that they had done what they could to legalize their
relationship, had been faithful to one another, and had met
responsibility to their previous [and only legal] family, and
had conformed to the expectations of custom." From 1959 onward
it is LDS church policy to baptize, ordain, and give temple
ordinances to any Latin American man complying with above
requirements, even though he is living with a woman in legally
unmarried relationship defined as adulterous by "the law of the
land" where they live.

I've seen several baptisms where the girlfriend/boyfriend of the dunkee was in attendance. I'm pretty sure that many were living together.

I moved in with my wife before we were legally married. Bishop didn't say anything. Remained a member in good standing until going inactive several months back.

That said, I live in a liberal, urban area that isn't growing and lacks sufficient PH holders in the English-speaking wards. They probably couldn't afford to lose another highly active male and choose (like the MP on baptisms) to look the other way.

Unless you're in a strict one with lots of oversight; does anyone here know which those might be?


JWs?


Westboro Baptists?


Pentecostals?


I doubt others care, I don't believe where I worship (Seattle Mennonite) would notice or say anything.

When I was a ward clerk, the bishop was the landlord over ~1/3 of all rental property in the city. Since our ward included all the city, he would often receive a lease with the names of ward members. If the couple were unmarried (and not of the same sex), he would hold a Church court. It was automatic for him.

Could someone marry if they were co-habitating (or living common-law)? Yes, if they swore up and down (on a stack of BoMs?) that they were only roommates.

It depends on where and under what circumstances it takes place.

Some States recognize it, and some States don't. If you enter into a common-law marriage in a State that recognizes it, other things need to apply also. You need to behave legally and socially like a married couple: i.e, live together, file taxes as a married couple, use the same last name, maybe buy a house together, refer to each other as husband and wife, etc.

The rules are different from State to State. However, the one thing they have in common is that once entered into validly, a common-law marriage can ONLY be dissolved by a legal divorce. I ran into cases in Social Security where couples who were validly married under common law thought all they had to do was "break up." Not so.

Common-law was created so that couples who did not have ready access (in days gone by) to magistrates or ministers who had the authority to marry them. So they married under common-law so that they would not be living in sin.

A lot of people seem to think that "common-law" means the same thing as "shacking up." It does not.

Common law marriages are still legal in some states of the United States. (And there are plenty of legally married women who have not taken the last name of husbands.)

It is against church policy to baptize either member of a couple who is not legally married. At some point (probably in the 1960's) those in common law marriages were asked to get married with the marriage license and such before being baptised.

No its against their policy still. We had investigators, who were a couple, had a child and lived together.
They wanted to get baptized but couldn't unless they marry or one of them will move out and rent an own flat. That's what they counsel them. You can't marry? Move out. You have a child together? No matter move out or you can't join our club. So first the dude said screw you and a few month later the woman, who really wanted to join was "lost" too.
They dodged a bullet.