https://www.deseret.com/2021/5/24/22451673/time-only-marriages-end-in-latter-day-saint-temples-only-marriage-sealings-to-continue-lds-mormon?fbclid=IwAR2Yf1xGvKWcNbwDx95YU9JDCWDaaFRZE9RGfgKINtSC8xSnHlDuuBGIpLk


and I thought the light-pen was out of ink !?

This comes as a bit of a surprise. On the one hand, the church is giving up its hammer to prod both widowed partners to having a TR. OTOH, there were probably situations where one partner did not qualify, and the stigma of a “chapel marriage” was such that the couple dropped out of activity altogether and simply moved in together.

That could have a domino effect of children or grandchildren of the couple dropping out because hey, grandma is shacking up.

Or maybe they are just trying to make chapel marriages more acceptable. Perhaps they are losing too many young couples. None of my nieces or nephews qualified for a temple wedding, and none got married in the chapel either, and I think none are active now.

Anyway, a puzzler to me why they decided to change a policy that so rarely comes into play.

Rusty is the Dean Wormer of Mormonism.

What secret probation number are you currently on?

This sets up a time when all LDS couples are required to have a civil marriage first which is later sealed in a temple ceremony.

This follows the policy announced in 2019 discontinuing the one-year wait after civil marriage before a temple sealing.

The line is being drawn between the civil ordinance of marriage - where they don’t have control over who participates - and a temple sealing where they do.

They may not be able to prevent countries from allowing same-sex marriage, but they can keep from being forced to perform same-sex sealings.

Tyson

>but they can keep from being forced to perform same-sex sealings.

I can think of no circumstance in any nation where the church could be forced to perform same sex seatings. Hell, they can refuse to seal coffee drinkers.

Exactly. They've always been free to discriminate against coffee drinkers and other "sinners" when it comes to temple "sealings." For the most part, same-sex couples tend to have civil ceremonies anyway, unless they have it done at a Unitarian, Epsicopal, or other extremely liberal church.

Interesting thought Ty. We will have to watch how this plays out.

Let's start with "time-only marriages," The whole thing is nonsense.

Many states now legalize olders ‘shacking up’ with Domestic Partnerships so ppl can avoid social security penalties when retirees marry;

Utah, of course, hasn’t done that.

"It's as legal as a penis . . ."

 --Judge Judic West, of the Northrumpshire Summer Assize

MeThinks that if a couple became a Domestic Partnership in another state, moved to Utah, ... Utah would likely be required under the 'full faith & credit' clause of the U.S. Constitution to honor it...


Unless the leg passed a statute contrary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 04:15PM by GNPE.

It's a good question. My guess is that Utah would be compelled to recognize a marriage from another state but not a non-marriage of the sort you describe.

Conversely, if you are right about the constitution requiring recognition of a non-marriage relationship, that would not be subject to revision by either state legislature because the federal constitution supersedes such actions.

I believe (Washington State's) DP laws give certain legal privileges to couples similar to a marriage.

my opinion is that this would be included in any reasonable reading - application of the full faith & credit clause UNLESS Utah *other states* choose to attempt to nullify it.

However

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

my reading opinion is that only Congress can modify applications.

LW is right; the application / intent of this could escalate thru the courts given ChurchCo's jealous positions on 'moral' matters (choke!)

next time I have access to lexis or another legal search site, I'll spend more time on this...

edited to add:

the FF&C clause has been interpreted / applied to have more cred to Judicial Acts rather than administrative acts; if I were in that situation, I'd go before a judge to finalize / enact my DP on the chance that I might move to a state that doesn't recognize them; I'd be itching for an appellate court ruling; Bring It ON!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2021 09:38PM by GNPE.

Weren't time-only TEMPLE marriages used when worthy widows remarried to worthy men?

Must Be (ChurchCo version of) 'worthy' to get a TR.
The woman had to have had a previous Sealing, but not the person with a male fixture...

just sayin'



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2021 06:08PM by GNPE.

Peggy's tribune article is headlined "LDS leaders tinker--again--with temple marriages".

That made me snicker just a little bit. Yep, that sounds inspired.

I'm 65. My parents were married in 1948. First in the chapel (or somewhere) and then "later solemnized in the SLC Temple." As the parents of my friends have all died over the past decade or two, I recall that their obituaries pretty much all had the "married on ..." and also "later solemnized...." statements.

My oldest brother was married in Germany. He and his wife were first married in front of a judge or civic official. And then the next day they were married in the Post chapel. But the one in front of the civic authority was the LEGAL marriage, not the church one.

This is great because I am a Universal Life minister and I can now marry Mormon couples
don't tell the Bish!!!

Once and forever it is a mind control maneuver.
it is part of get the money first.
Actually, like the rest of the scam, it is a JOKE!!!

My dad had one of those time only marriages.

Maybe THAT'S why she ditched him three weeks later.

Upthread there was some discussion about domestic partnership laws as a way to get "married" without suffering a tax penalty on SS. I was not aware of the ins and outs of such laws, so I did some poking around. Here's what I found:

Domestic partnership laws were created as an end run around the lack of marriage equality in most states. The primary benefits were that there could be automatic inheritance on death of one of the partners in cases where there was no will, and the partner could automatically have health care authority in cases where there was not a health care directive designating who could make health care decisions.

With the legalization of marriage equality, I'm not sure what the status is on the domestic partnership laws. I didn't see anything online indicating that they were changed or no longer in force, so I assume they are still in force and available.


For federal tax purposes, a domestic partnership is NOT considered a marriage. The partner does not have rights to spousal survivorship benefits under SS. They can't file joint tax returns. Under most state laws where domestic partnerships are available, they also are considered unmarried. I believe that a person in a domestic partnership is free to marry, and that marriage would invalidate the domestic partnership, but I don't know if that is true in all DP states.

In some states, for tax purposes, a DP IS considered the same as marriage. In those states (and California is among them) you would get to calculate three federal returns: two individual returns to be filed for federal purposes, and third joint federal return that is not filed, but used as the basis for a joint state return. (If you are single for federal purposes, but filing as married filing separately for state, it is even worse. Don't ask)

In short, it is a real mess. I don't think it buys you all that much. If your taxes would go up if you married, the simplest way to avoid that is move in together and not get married. In the eyes of the law, a domestic partnership is not a marriage anyway under federal law, and it is at best sort of a marriage but not really, under state law, and at worst, it is no more a marriage than under federal law.


Y'all may remember when, some years ago, Utah legalized the marriage of first cousins provided they were both over a certain age (62?) or younger if they could certify that they were medically incapable of having children. The reason was so that older people in small Utah towns who needed or wanted to move in together because they needed someone around the house because of their failing health, or whatever, could marry so they would not run afoul of "living in sin" condemnation from LDS Inc.

In small Utah towns, of course, damn near everyone is a cousin, so the law was changed to allow a certain class of first cousins to marry. Utah, gotta love it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2021 02:25PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Mormonism doesn't even know what time is and certainly is confused as to the meaning of eternal and eternity.

Maybe they are separating the marriage from the ceiling. They see the writing on the wall.

I hope more mormons that do marry get wise with the temple endownment and just never complete it.

It's an awfully boring ceremony anyway.

I remember going through endowments and thinking ... so this is all the high valued knowledge I'm going to get from heavenly father.. every time. A movie with no popcorn. You can only ponder about the plan of salvation and the token/keys for so long to think ,, where is the rest of it?

The sealing is just an old guy who is on duty, gives some information, some advice that may or may not be helpful and then moves along to his 2 o'clock appointment sealing.


I hope they all get wise and never go.

"Time only" temple marriages really only affected women. Men who are widowed can get polygamously married in the temple. Perhaps the church should do away with the polygamous temple marriages to be, you know, fair. Ha, ha, ha!

My great grandpa was sealed for ‘time’. He and the wife had both been sealed to cspouses when they were younger. They were actually married for like 40 years, their previous marriages were only for a couple decades or less.

They don’t want any marriages being done in the temples because the church worries about future anti discrimination laws that will require both heterosexual marriages and gay marriages to be performed where marriages are done. By calling it a sealing and not a marriage the church can avoid being strong armed into performing gay marriages in a temple.

I don't see that ever happening, but I could see church leaders thinking that way.