- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Article in SLTribune. Word is buzzing about the church’s one year waiting period. I hope it is true, for whatever reason. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.csp I mentioned this in the other thread that also touched on the subject. If the church doesn’t change policy maybe members can start up a grassroots campaign to change US/Canada law to be similar to other nations. Church policy would have to adapt as a result. Sometimes it seems that route would be easier.
This part of the article disturbed me — the reasoning is phenomenal (I am not critizing John Dehlin’s reasoning) — but the potential motive of the church for doing away with this awful policy could be primarily self-serving, and not out of concern for its members (like myself) who were severely disadvantaged throughout their entire life as I was. Quote:
John Dehlin, who runs the Mormon Stories website, believes there is another reason why the Utah-based faith may shift its temple wedding policy. Dehlin writes on his Facebook page that he has heard that “this change is primarily motivated out of a desire to help the church avoid discrimination-based litigation once same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states.”By separating “civil ceremonies from the temple ceremonies (ahead of time),” Dehlin writes, “apparently the church feels like it will avoid discrimination lawsuits down the road.”
I sincerely hope this change is made and made soon. If we had married in the temple first, I doubt my spouses family would have been able to accept me. He was a new convert, and we didn’t want to extend the engagement, so we had a civil ceremony and then sealing later on. I’m so glad we did. It would have been a terrible way to start off our marriage, without his family being there. It leaves people in a bad position when family members can’t participate in the wedding. A change would only make sense and avoid hurt feelings. Silent Dawning said:
Quote:but the potential motive of the church for doing away with this awful policy could be primarily self-serving, and not out of concern for its members (like myself) who were severely disadvantaged throughout their entire life as I was.
I’m sorry the policy caused you so much pain. Let’s hope if they change it they do it to keep future couples from experiencing what you experienced.
I think they are aware of the pain it causes and will change it for that reason. John’s thoughts aside, I just don’t see those reasons as the foundation of any change – since I don’t see them as actionable in court. SilentDawning wrote:This part of the article disturbed me — the reasoning is phenomenal (I am not critizing John Dehlin’s reasoning) — but the potential motive of the church for doing away with this awful policy could be primarily self-serving, and not out of concern for its members (like myself) who were severely disadvantaged throughout their entire life as I was.
Quote:
John Dehlin, who runs the Mormon Stories website, believes there is another reason why the Utah-based faith may shift its temple wedding policy. Dehlin writes on his Facebook page that he has heard that “this change is primarily motivated out of a desire to help the church avoid discrimination-based litigation once same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states.”By separating “civil ceremonies from the temple ceremonies (ahead of time),” Dehlin writes, “apparently the church feels like it will avoid discrimination lawsuits down the road.”
I think that’s right down the church’s ally – just like ending polygamy. “Revelation” aside, that was done so Utah could gain statehood, pure and simple. John may well be right.
That said, I have thought over the past few years as SSM has become an issue that religious marriage and civil marriage should be different anyway – the two really are unrelated in many ways. Such a system where government stays out of church matters and vice versa is quite in keeping with the constitution and ideals of the founding fathers, and quite in harmony with teachings of the church. In truth, I think it’s government that should have no role in marriage, but I do understand the whole thing with taxes, etc., and see no government involvement as a non-reality.
Curtis wrote:I think they are aware of the pain it causes and will change it for that reason. John’s thoughts aside, I just don’t see those reasons as the foundation of any change – since I don’t see them as actionable in court.
Sorry Curtis but if they saw the pain it caused they would have changed long ago.They have not changed it this far because they are out of touch. It took something to rattle their guilded cage to get them to consider it.
Cadence, I didn’t even hint at how long they have been aware of the pain – or who was at what point. All I said is that they now are aware of it. I give the internet the forum credit for that. I don’t know Curtis — these are smart men at the top. The implications of the one year penalty could not have escaped them. I’m sure they knew it when they instituted this awful policy. It doesn’t take much of a leap in reasoning to recognize that policies which exclude the family of non-members from participating in the civil wedding could damage many family relationships. I can only surmise that the leaders felt the suffering it causes outweighs the benefits to the institution at the time. They are not stupid. Whether their motives for considering a change in this policy is legally motivated, out of compassion or simply “doing what’s right” or not — the church does change when there are threats to it — such as lifting the priesthood ban in the wake of the civil rights movement, doing away with plural marriage to preserve their assets, or finally coming clean on objectionable parts of our history when it appears they are losing members over feelings of betray.
I think John Dehlin’s assessment is sad, but likely
I agree they are smart men, SD, and I also believe they discuss policies in depth in councils before making any change. I’m also sure they are sometimes blind to the way things are outside the Mormon Corridor (although I see significant change in that respect). I would bet when this policy was made (When was it made?) they did not thoroughly consider the impact it might have on families with many non-members because that was unusual in the MC. Some of that impact, as has been noted here, has been a bitterness toward the church by those non-member parents, siblings, etc., who have been excluded from a major life event and as a result want to have absolutely nothing to do with the church. A change could vastly improve the image of the church in these situations and actually help the missionary effort – that has to be part of the discussion. I read through all the comments made in that link. Very interesting perspectives. I am now arriving to the party as the killjoy. I believe this idea is a rumor and no more. Here’s my reasons, according to my husband an active disaffected facebook following member, on the day of the October surprise, which arrived in February, the facebook threads were all hopping with readings of the fraud case, and busy speculation, when John Dehlin jumped in and asked, “Can anyone confirm the rumor that the temple policy is being changed?” Of course no one could, but people went hunting, buzzing went around, and people started creating a 1 + 1 story that I don’t believe ever existed. I don’t think there was a rumor, I think John had a different agenda in mind, now it’s spinning a life of it’s own. My conviction was strengthened when my TBM daughter started quoting John’s comments in the Trib article. (I hadn’t bothered to read it).
Maybe a rumor did start, but it appears to be a wild one. Too many bloggernacle groups would have jumped on it, if it had any possible leg to stand on. Rationalfaiths has plea on it’s banner page asking the church leadership to pray about the issue. It’s been there for the past 2 years, nothing has changed.
As much as I would love to see a change, I don’t think it will, and I think we are setting ourselves up for additional disappointment if we keep holding our breath and hoping. Sorry to be a downer, but we have enough disappointment, lets not create some we don’t need.
Finally – I liked Kirby’s piece, but then I’ve never met a Kirby piece I didn’t like.
Particles of Faithanyone? If the policy goes away, I’ll be happy regardless of the motivation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.