Comments on: I Believe in Marriage

By: Cara Rogers

Cara Rogers — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 03:14:49 +0000

Nice article, I say go for it and do what you want to do. Marrying people can’t be bad in anyway and I think its great that you are so open minded to marrying people even of the same sex. Congratulations to you and your open mindedness I hope it takes you far.

By: annegb

annegb — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:32:51 +0000

True.

By: queuno

queuno — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:57:03 +0000

Agreed, annegb. But unless you’re marrying in the temple, most LDS wards won’t consider you conforming to the norms and mores.

By: annegb

annegb — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:32:50 +0000

There’s a good sociological benefit, though, queuno. There is power in conforming to the norms and mores of the society in which we live.

By: queuno

queuno — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:04:08 +0000

jks wrote, “However, being married by your bishop has the added benefit of being part of your church, your congregation, being free, etc. and there is an appropriate reference to God in the ceremony that most Mormons would feel comfortable with. ”

Unless you’re sealed in the temple, most wards/congregations wouldn’t consider your marriage to make you any more part of the congregation, with the exception that you get the sin part out of the way.

If you’re not getting married in the temple, then you might as well be married by someone you’re comfortable and familiar with, and give them whatever text makes you comfortable (even complete with scripture).

In my perfect world, though, you would have to be married by the State and then the church can do with you what they wish when it comes to getting sealed. I see no benefit to the Church to allowing bishops or stake presidents or GAs to actually “marry”.

By: queuno

queuno — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:01:03 +0000

“I’m sure there are thousands of LDS women who have performed marriages as civil authorities.”

There’s no way to prove it, obviously, but I’d take that bet. Thousands? Maybe dozens or a hundred or so. But thousands?

By: Barbra23

Barbra23 — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:51:55 +0000

Atheists are people, too! Why should atheists have to get married in a church?

By: jks

jks — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:30:31 +0000

The bishop is the only one in the ward who can marry people as an official of the church. Not everything the bishop does is a priesthood ordinance. Just because the bishop is assigned this responsibiity doesn’t mean it is the priesthood. Stacking chairs isn’t an official priesthood ordinance but ph holders are assigned to do it.
The bishop can marry people. He has the obligation and privelege to marry members of his ward who ask him to perform the ceremony. When he does this he is acting as a bishop of the church.
As a woman I have the privelege of knowing that I do plenty of things (and someday might do other things in other callings) that are official but are not a priesthood thing. Please tell me that men realize that not everything they do is using the priesthood! It is actually possible to do God’s work without it, just not certain things. A person married by the bishop isn’t any more married in the eyes of God than a person married by a judge. However, being married by your bishop has the added benefit of being part of your church, your congregation, being free, etc. and there is an appropriate reference to God in the ceremony that most Mormons would feel comfortable with. Once, I went to my nonmember neice’s wedding and by the end of the guy talking I realized he must be the local bishop because of what he had mentioned while speaking and the wording of the ceremony. My neice’s parents hadn’t been to church in 30 years, but her brother joined the church and I guess she decided the local bishop was free and nice so she asked him to do the ceremony.

By: I Dwell In A Tent

I Dwell In A Tent — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:51:57 +0000

Bookslinger – we’ll agree to disagree. I know a PH marriage is not a “saving ordinance.” Of course, neither is receiving a patriarchal blessing or being named/blessed as a child. The old handbook used to say the couples were making promises before “God, angels and witnesses.” The new handbook just says “God and these witnesses.” But, the reason I say the Bishop is wearing two hats is because not just any PH holder can perform marriages — essentially Bishops, Stake Presidents and Mission Presidents. Is it a PH ordinance? Sort of. Elder Holland says covenants are between people and God. Read the church ceremony – the man and woman covenant with God to cleave unto and love one another. They don’t make those promises to each other. Handbook also says “… in harmony with the sacredness of the marriage covenants.” With the Bishop administering the questions, that leans me on the side of saying this is more than just a civil ceremony. Plus, he closes by saying “…by the legal authority vested in me as an elder of the Church…..” When I do a wedding for the state, I don’t technically have to do anything other than ascertain whether the parties consent to be married. The state law expressly says what legal obligations the parties owe one another, as well as what rights they have. I think the verbage used in a PH ceremony goes much further and beyond what state law requires. Therefore, when a Bishop marries a couple, they not only make basic state expressed promises, they are also covenanting with God. Sorry for the digression and threadjack. If Living In Zion wants to perform wedding ceremonies, more power to her. I would just encourage her to spend some time getting to know the laws in her state that address marriage, and understand fully the obligations imposed on parties that get married. I have 200 pages of thoughts on plural sealings, a topic for another day. I’ll reiterate. I think all heterosexual marriages are “ordained of God” as set forth in the Proclamation. I know church leaders would disagree, but in light of the conflict over SSM, I would almost rather see state sanctioned marriage go away completely and leave it to the religious institutions to handle the marital affairs.

By: annegb

annegb — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:39:45 +0000

#15 is probably one of the most brilliant things ever to come out of my mouth. Sometimes I’m stunned and amazed at my wisdom. So stunned I barely remember even saying it.

If an off-the-wall kind of Mormon guy started performing civil marriages, including gay marriage, I don’t think he’d be censured as much as an off-the-wall kind of Mormon women.

But he’d encounter some negative responses. Gay marriage isn’t legal here, so that’s a non-issue. But if a Mormon performed a civil marriage betweeen gay persons in states where it’s legal, I imagine the leadership would shit a brick.

Which is why I’m enjoying the thought of LIZ doing it. Again, you go, girl. :). (This is really me)