- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Got an interesting one here. My brother (not a member, non-religious) is getting married next year, and asked me to perform the marriage. I am ‘the religious / spiritual one’ in my family. I looked online and there are hundreds of sites that will, in the eyes of the state, ‘ordain’ you. Once ordained, I could perform the marriage. Now I am looking online, and there are hundreds of sites that I can obtain an ordination for free. So now I will find one that aligns with my feelings and get ‘dual ordained’ (?)
I guess I have heard about this before, but never really thought about it, because well, no one has ever asked me to perform a marriage. I thought I might have a bit of a clash of conscience here as I take my ordination to the m.priesthood seriously, and thought if I sign up for one of these would i be betraying my priesthood? Then I thought about it some more, and here I have the opportunity to be a part of my brother’s wedding in a special way that he asked me to. I get to perform a union between two people I love, who love each other; in the eyes of god or in the eyes of the state, it really doesn’t matter. I’ll be marrying them according to the laws of the land for long as they remain together. I will treat it with respect and hope that their marriage lasts.
My former bishop and stake president got a permit to be a celebrant to conduct secular (non-religious) funerals at a funeral home. Makes a decent fee, and doesn’t seem bothered by it in the least. I think as long as you are not joining another religion then the church I don’t think is involved. They do consider joining another church grounds for getting exed. Just because Robert Kirby has done it doesn’t mean it gives us a pass, but Kirby did do and performed a gay marriage (according to a column he once wrote). My own point of view is that I don’t think doing this would be an affront to the priesthood, all it really does is give you the legal right to perform marriages as opposed to the religious right to do so (although some might dispute that you don’t have the religious right). In another thread related to marriage I didn’t talk about mu conundrum on the subject of legal versus religious marriage. I actually see marriage as a religious rite and from that point of view the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage licenses are after all just another tax. On the other hand, for other purposes, perhaps more especially in the US, it might be important to be able to have legal proof of marriage and even the church uses terminology like “legally and lawfully” married. If that’s the case there’s not need for a religious rite. In reality for the present there appears to be the need for both the government to be involved and for those who are religious a Godly rite. To some extent the church walks a fine line there but is probably better prepared to get out of the marriage business than most other churches – we could be in the sealing business and marriage could be all just a legal thing (and I believe there are some in the church who already see it this way). The latter would be fine with me – we don’t do marriages, we only seal those who are legally and lawfully wedded. Coming full circle, if being legally and lawfully wed is all that’s really required then it wouldn’t seem to matter much how that happens.
Reflexzero wrote:
My former bishop and stake president got a permit to be a celebrant to conduct secular (non-religious) funerals at a funeral home. Makes a decent fee, and doesn’t seem bothered by it in the least.
My understanding is that these ordinations would cover marriages funerals Etc, but since I wouldn’t be doing it for monetary reasons I would be avoiding the accusation of ‘priestcraft’ by some. I wouldn’t consider it that myself, I’ve had friends who were bartenders and active members at the same time. I know I’m making a loose connection there.
LookingHard wrote:
I think as long as you are not joining another religion then the church I don’t think is involved. They do consider joining another church grounds for getting exed.
Some of these online ordinations want you to except and adhere to their tenants, which some I may not agree with, so I want to find one that is more Universal, General.
DarkJedi wrote:
… legal versus religious marriage.
I grew up with the notion that marriage was a Godly thing, the lawful part hadn’t really entered my mind. I see the legal side as well and still think that marriage is more a religious rite than a legal one.
During The Proposition 8 thing here in California this came to the front of all of our minds as we headed to find for herself what marriage was and where we stood on the issue. At the time I supported Prop 8 as I looked at it as a religious rite, and the laws here in California at least covered domestic partners with the same laws as that of a married couple. So the issue wasn’t really an issue for me at the time, since all of the rights for the same regardless of what kind of Union you were in. I don’t think I would wholeheartedly support The Prop 8 issue now as I did then.
I would look into who you get the ordination off – you don’t want your name linked with the next death cult I think it’s a nice counter balance to the travesty of the one year waiting period. I’d do it. Bishops perform civil weddings when asked…the reason they can do it is they are recognized as ministers by the legal system, so why can’t you also become legal and not be dissing the priesthood? LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
Then I thought about it some more, and here I have the opportunity to be a part of my brother’s wedding in a special way that he asked me to. I get to perform a union between two people I love, who love each other; in the eyes of god or in the eyes of the state, it really doesn’t matter. I’ll be marrying them according to the laws of the land for long as they remain together. I will treat it with respect and hope that their marriage lasts.
This is perfect. I no longer view my priesthood authority as anything supernatural – but I do crave to be an important part of key milestones for my kids/family. Baptizing my kids was precious to me. Annual school year blessings are meaningful to me. I believe that if you strip out all the wording of “By the power and authority of the holy M.P.”, these moments are still precious and meaningful. I am glad that you are able to serve your brother in this way. carry on.
:thumbup: I have said for many years that we ought to encourage ALL fathers, not just Mormon fathers, to give their children father’s blessings – simply removing the mention of Priesthood. I believe the same about mother’s blessings. Likewise, as long as there is no official religious affiliation involved, I see no problem whatsoever with being ordained to perform civilly-binding marriages. It’s not like Justices of the Peace have any religious affiliation requirements.
My only concern is the possibility of “easy authority” being used to perform non-consensual marriages on the sly. That is a real concern for me, but I still see no problem in members being able to perform civil ceremonies, as long as the civil authorities have authorized it. That is their call, not mine.
Old Timer wrote:
My only concern is the possibility of “easy authority” being used to perform non-consensual marriages on the sly.
What do you mean by a non-consensual marriage?
If essentially anyone can marry anyone and have it be accepted by the government (if there aren’t solid guidelines), there are trafficking groups that could perform civil marriages that would legitimize non-consensual arrangements. SilentDawning wrote:
What do you mean by a non-consensual marriage?
There are also situations where a teenage girl impregnated through statutory rape (baby’s father is older)is pressured by family into marriage. The reasoning is to have the baby in wedlock and to shield the baby’s father because prosecutors will rarely go after the statutory rapist after a marriage is solemnized.
I am not sure if “getting ordained online” plays into this. In the article I was reading these families would travel to states where a minor can marry with parental consent. It sounded like they were going through a justice of the peace. As long as both parties say “I do,” (and do not look terrified in their facial and body language expressions) I do not think there is too much probing going on.
Roy wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
What do you mean by a non-consensual marriage?
There are also situations where a teenage girl impregnated through statutory rape (baby’s father is older)is pressured by family into marriage. The reasoning is to have the baby in wedlock and to shield the baby’s father because prosecutors will rarely go after the statutory rapist after a marriage is solemnized.
I am not sure if “getting ordained online” plays into this. In the article I was reading these families would travel to states where a minor can marry with parental consent. It sounded like they were going through a justice of the peace. As long as both parties say “I do,” (and do not look terrified in their facial and body language expressions) I do not think there is too much probing going on.
Very insightful.
SamBee wrote:
I would look into who you get the ordination off – you don’t want your name linked with the next death cult
I did sign up for two different ones, one a very general universal type online church and the other was a themed (not to be taken seriously, but it’s still legal). Figure I’ve got my bases covered there.
SilentDawning wrote:
I think it’s a nice counter balance to the travesty of the one year waiting period. I’d do it. Bishops perform civil weddings when asked…the reason they can do it is they are recognized as ministers by the legal system, so why can’t you also become legal and not be dissing the priesthood?
In my mind, I had to separate the priesthood which I hold from the legal right to officiate a marriage, straight to your point.
Roy wrote:
This is perfect. I no longer view my priesthood authority as anything supernatural – but I do crave to be an important part of key milestones for my kids/family. Baptizing my kids was precious to me. Annual school year blessings are meaningful to me. I believe that if you strip out all the wording of “By the power and authority of the holy M.P.”, these moments are still precious and meaningful. I am glad that you are able to serve your brother in this way. carry on.:thumbup:
Perfect! You’re right, when I look back, all of the blessings that I’ve given, baptisms, these were all service. The priesthood is service.
Old Timer wrote:
My only concern is the possibility of “easy authority” being used to perform non-consensual marriages on the sly. That is a real concern for me, but I still see no problem in members being able to perform civil ceremonies, as long as the civil authorities have authorized it. That is their call, not mine.
Old Timer wrote:
If essentially anyone can marry anyone and have it be accepted by the government (if there aren’t solid guidelines), there are trafficking groups that could perform civil marriages that would legitimize non-consensual arrangements.
Roy wrote:
As long as both parties say “I do,” (and do not look terrified in their facial and body language expressions) I do not think there is too much probing going on.
Essentially most States and counties do not require a lot of background from the officiator, but they do require the proper licensing and paperwork (and fees) from the couple. The marriage application must be filled out beforehand and submitted afterwards etc. The officiator is then the one responsible for making sure the paperwork is completed.
I’ll let you know as we go through this of there’s some loophole where I could marry someone without their consent, but I doubt it.
Maybe I could marry two fence posts
😂 If you remember that old mission Urban legend…
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:Essentially most States and counties do not require a lot of background from the officiator, but they do require the proper licensing and paperwork (and fees) from the couple.
This. IIRC, at least a few places the only requirements from the officiant are being of age to sign the paperwork, and signing a second document affirming that the officiant will not sign if there is any indication that either party is incompetent to enter into marriage or being coerced.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.