The revokation of the Nov 2015 policy leads to an interesting question. Will a conference announcement be that they will start having members marry civilly prior to a temple sealing. One of the speculated reasons for the Nov 2015 policy was to keep from being forced to perform gay marriage in the temples. It was speculated that the revelation came from Kirton-McKonkie. If they start requiring civil marriage prior to temple sealing then the temple is no longer for marriage but only for performing a religious ritual only quasi related to marriage. Anyway, just my speculation.

Not a bad prediction. Technically a temple sealing is different than a civil marriage. Temple sealings don't count as legal marriages anyways. You have to have a marriage certificate from the county you were married in for legal proof of marriage. The temple sealing certificate means nothing legally.

So yeah. I can see couples having to go to the country courthouse and getting married by a judge and then go to the temple to get sealed. Might cause a problem though. Couples will soon have sex after they get a civil marriage and just blow off the temple sealing. Ha!Ha! Who knows where that dynamic will lead. Maybe temple sealings will fall by the wayside because all the relatives can go to a civil wedding. Will the church allow bishops to perform gay marriages? I doubt it. So members will just hire another type of clergy to do the marriage instead if they want a more traditional wedding. Oh this could open pandora's box.

Civil marriage before a temple sealing is mandatory in the UK, and probably other parts of the world.

It doesn't bring the universe to an end. It isn't a Pandors's Box. It is actually quite sensible.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civil marriage before a temple sealing is
> mandatory in the UK, and probably other parts of
> the world.
>
> It doesn't bring the universe to an end. It isn't
> a Pandors's Box. It is actually quite sensible.

What I'm getting at is many members of the church here in the states and where the church has most it's tithing payers keep a temple recommend so they can go to relatives and friends temple weddings.

We weren't married until we went to the temple even though we had to buy a marriage license in the county we were married in. I can remember filling out the paperwork in the temple with my dad and my father in law being the witnesses of the marriage.

So if you have to get a civil marriage before being sealed in the temple people are going to have a big public wedding where the friends and relatives without temple recommends can come. Girls love the fancy weddings and they can have a real wedding instead of the bland temple marriage. Then after the wedding the young married couple heads off for the wedding night and off to the honeymoon. Some are just going to blow off going to the temple.

Temple marriage and having to have a temple recommend to attend a temple wedding is the biggest gimmick the church has going to retain members and have tithing coming in. If the civil wedding trend becomes a big thing in the church and young couples don't bother with the temple sealing then this causes the church some serious problems.

What is the "Nov 2015 policy"?

I know a lot of reluctant parents who paid tithing ONLY because they wanted to be present at their children's temple weddings. I did that, and it cost me thousands of dollars. My parents did that for my wedding.

There are so many non-tithe-paying parents, and so many young TBM, RM, BYU, BYU-I, Rick's couples being coerced into temple marriages, and so many thousands of dollars to be extorted from their parents. I can't imagine the Mormon church giving up that sweet little source of revenue--ever--for any reason.

Good point.

Yet, if the amount of money the cult is losing from the bleeding membership far exceeds the amount gained from tithing paid by parents to see their kids temple married, the choice might just be to opt for the civil ceremony followed by the temple ceremony.

exminion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the "Nov 2015 policy"?
>
> I know a lot of reluctant parents who paid tithing
> ONLY because they wanted to be present at their
> children's temple weddings. I did that, and it
> cost me thousands of dollars. My parents did that
> for my wedding.
>
> There are so many non-tithe-paying parents, and so
> many young TBM, RM, BYU, BYU-I, Rick's couples
> being coerced into temple marriages, and so many
> thousands of dollars to be extorted from their
> parents. I can't imagine the Mormon church giving
> up that sweet little source of revenue--ever--for
> any reason.

The Nov 2015 policy was for legal reasons. The church would not allow the adopted children of gay married couples to be baptized in the church. This created a huge amount of anger, bad publicity and many exits from the church.

The reason this was done was so the courts could claim the church was discriminating against the parents because the children can be baptized but the parents can't get a temple wedding in the church. The Nov 2015 policy was to eliminate that possibility and to protect the temple.

Well the church has gotten too much flack so they are allowing the adopted children of gay married couples to be baptized. We are speculating they now will require members to get a civil wedding first and then get a temple sealing. This way the courts can't claim the church is discriminating against anyone and the temple sealing is just another temple ordinance and not a marriage.

No the church isn't giving up temple marriage. As you have said they make too much money off of temple marriage. But they are now open to discrimination law suits if they don't require everyone to get a civil marriage and then if they choose a temple sealing.

It's all about the church avoiding legal trouble and being forced to perform gay marriages.

I'm not sure where you are getting this, but it is inaccurate. Religions can and do discriminate against gay people all the time, also genders and even ethnic groups. Their right to do so is constitutionally protected.

The motivation behind the changes in policy towards the children is political, not legal.

Marriage is a legal act. It's what inheritance and other legal issues are determined by. The church didn't count on all the negative backlash their decision of banning the children with gay parents would cause.

So now they are doing a 180 reversal and if the reason for the original decision was so discrimination against the parents can't be claimed the church will have to distance legal civil marriage from temple marriage.

Russ likes to rename stuff so temple marriages will be called temple dealings. Marriage will no longer be used and marriage will be a civil contract.

This allows the church to discriminate on ordinances. Not everyone can enter the temple. Sorry you can't participate in a sealing. You are not living the law of chastity. With the term marriage removed the church cannot be accused of medaling in marriage where gay marriage is now legal.

It's either for those reasons or Russ has just gone crazy. Haha!

For me, it was a give away that LD$ inc has NO real authority on marriage when they deferred to the state in the MORmON temple ceremony.

This is a broad prediction, but more and more, one way or another, LD$ inc is going mean less and less.

I don't think that will happen. Encouraging temple marriage is a revenue generator for the church, and also a handy shaming device if couples fail to comply.

Churches are not compelled to perform any type of marriages in the U.S. They are free to set their own standards. This has always been the case.