Leah71187 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 So Im getting married in about 6 months. I am baptized but i do not practice anymore whereas my family still does. the man im marrying is not a member. I really want my first bishop to marry us but he isn't a presiding member anymore. Would he still be able to perform our wedding? Any info helps a lot! thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 So Im getting married in about 6 months. I am baptized but i do not practice anymore whereas my family still does. the man im marrying is not a member. I really want my first bishop to marry us but he isn't a presiding member anymore. Would he still be able to perform our wedding? Any info helps a lot! thanks!I want to say yes. My brother was married by our old bishop. The ability to preform ceremonies has nothing to do with religion but comes from the state. I don't think they take it once an LDS bishop losses his calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I am not sure but I would say that he would not be able to. It is while Bishop that he is authorized to perform marriages, at least that is what I have always thought, I may be wrong. When called to be Bishop you have to apply to the county to perform marriages. In Nevada you are authorized only to perform marriages in your county. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 So Im getting married in about 6 months. I am baptized but i do not practice anymore whereas my family still does. the man im marrying is not a member. I really want my first bishop to marry us but he isn't a presiding member anymore. Would he still be able to perform our wedding? Any info helps a lot! thanks!Being released from that calling, he has no church/state authority to marry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Being released from that calling, he has no church/state authority to marry.Really? I see how he would loss church authority but state authority isn't based on religions practice. I'm surprised the state would take it away based on his calling. Unless the authority goes to the church and not the bishop as an individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Ask your Bishop on Sunday of what happens when he is release from his calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgia2 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 In the state I live in, a person has to be authorized by them to do a civil marriage. As a presiding BIshop, he is authorized. Once a person is released, he is no longer automatically authorized. He may however gain that authority by applying to the state. So, you would need to ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 In the state I live in, a person has to be authorized by them to do a civil marriage. As a presiding BIshop, he is authorized. Once a person is released, he is no longer automatically authorized. He may however gain that authority by applying to the state. So, you would need to ask him.When he is called, he has to apply for a granting authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Once a person is released, he is no longer automatically authorized. He may however gain that authority by applying to the state.Hmm. I agree that you'll want to ask him, but it strikes me that a released bishop is still a High Priest in the LDS lay clergy. It strikes me that it boils down to a matter of state law as to whether the state will recognize a marriage solemnized by a lay clergyman.When he is called, he has to apply for a granting authority.Interesting. Can you elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Just being called to be a Bishop does not give you authority to marry. In Nevada you apply to the county recorder. That is also why marriages in that county. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 It's in the handbook - those who have been released from the valid offices (bishop, stake/mission/branch president) are not authorized to perform civil marriages. LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Thanks LM, that is the controlling document for the Bishop and former Bishop. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Thanks LM, that is the controlling document for the Bishop and former Bishop.Well, according to Church law, yes; but not according to civil law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think it comes down to both the church and the state on that one. The state issues a license if you are an ordained preacher, and I assume that license expires at some point in time. But then when a bishop is released, the church withdraws its sponsorship of you as an ordained minister of the church, and thus would not allow you to perform a wedding under their auspices. When I was a missionary we were issued cards identifying us as ordained ministers of the church, with expiration dates on the cards. Technically, if we had applied for a license to marry in the state we were in, we would have been able to perform them, even though I don't know of any regular missionary who did that. I am aware of senior missionaries who did perform marriages, usually being branch presidents in their areas. I'm not sure, but I would assume that bishops are issued similar kinds of minster cards today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 so could one theoretically call the county courthouse and ask, if there is a valid license on hand saying that former bishop could do marriages then he could do it.... maybe not in a ward building (cause church policy says he can't do them) but someone's backyard???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I don't know, but I would guess that if he is still a member in good standing with the church and wanted to remain so, he would decline as he is no longer an ordained minister of the church. I do believe that temple sealers in the US who perform live marriages, are licensed as well, but I have never heard of a temple sealer performing a marriage outside of the temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, according to Church law, yes; but not according to civil law.I would agree with that statement. But at the end of the day, unless you can find a former Bishop willing to act without being authorized, you don't be gettin' hitched by no former Bishops. We Mormons tend to be big on 'proper authority' and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I would agree with that statement. But at the end of the day, unless you can find a former Bishop willing to act without being authorized, you don't be gettin' hitched by no former Bishops. We Mormons tend to be big on 'proper authority' and all that.I don't understand that. I could see it mentioned in the hand book to remind bishops they can't do it legally. If the authority is granted from the state to the church/ office of bishop and not the bishop himself but what would be the point of keeping a former bishop from officiating a wedding if he is legally able to? My non religions wedding performed by a clerk at the court house has the same standing in the church as brother so and so's who was married by the acting bishop of his ward. If my non religious marriage is as good as a church wedding with a standing bishop why would a former bishop be unauthorized?Only thing i can think is there are more former then current bishops so by keeping them(the former bishops) from performing weddings it forces couples to the standing bishop, who will direct them to the temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgia2 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hmm. I agree that you'll want to ask him, but it strikes me that a released bishop is still a High Priest in the LDS lay clergy. It strikes me that it boils down to a matter of state law as to whether the state will recognize a marriage solemnized by a lay clergyman.Interesting. Can you elaborate?The state doesn't really care what a persons calling is in our church. In order to perform civil marriages, they must have authority from the state or it is not recognized. Most the time when a Bishop is released, they no longer keep the documentation up to continue to do so. If they do, then the state has no problem. The church however might. When I was civilly married I wanted my old Bishop to perform the ceremony. The Stake pres at that time said he couldn't do it. He said my current Bishop was the man. So. we asked my old Bishop to say all the good stuff about being together and treating each other good, then the current Bishop did the uniting part. So, in essence we got what we wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I can see the Church not wanting its former clergy performing civil marriages under the color of church authority or on Church property. But my understanding is that in at least some states, it's not that big of a deal to get whatever permissions are necessary in order to perform a marriage. Where a couple has opted not to have a temple marriage, and not to have a civil marriage on Church property, does the Church have any further prerogative to impose its norms on the couple's wedding ceremony (so long as they are in harmony with the other commandments), or to prevent individual members from exercising their rights as citizens in order to officiate in a wholly civil function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madriglace Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 As Loud mouth Mormon pointed out we LDS are big on "proper authority". Sure the former Bishop could probably preform the wedding but they would be going against one of the major beliefs of the Church and that is that ordinances such as weddings need to be done by one who holds the proper authority. A released Bishop no longer holds those keys in the Church and as such would not presume to exercise them whether the law says they can or not. It's not really a matter of what the law says we can do it's a matter of what we know is right. Maybe the former Bishop can be a witness to the marriage and the new Bishop could preform it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) . . . one of the major beliefs of the Church . . . is that ordinances such as weddings need to be done by one who holds the proper authority.Is that a major belief of the Church?A non-temple wedding is not, to my knowledge, a priesthood ordinance. I must confess, I really have a hard time seeing what the issue is.The Church doesn't object to its members legally uniting children with non-biological children through adoption, even though there is a parallel temple ordinance (sealing).Why on earth would it object to its members legally uniting couples? (If the Church is institutionally on-record on cases like this, please correct me. But the point I'm driving towards is, I've seen no proof that the Church does have a policy in this regard other than vague allusions to the Church Handbook of Instructions.) Edited February 24, 2009 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madriglace Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Is that a major belief of the Church?A non-temple wedding is not, to my knowledge, a priesthood ordinance. I must confess, I really have a hard time seeing what the issue is.QUOTE]Maybe using the word ordinance for a civil wedding was not the one I was looking for and for that I apologize ... however I still stand by what I said. A released Bishop no longer holds the keys to that calling and as such would not try to exercise them. It's not a matter of not allowing or anything like that it is a matter of authority. It's like my calling is as the Sunday School teacher for the 14-16 year olds ... it is not my place to go say into primary and take over as president. That's not my calling ... I have no stewardship there. Members of the church know how it works and for us it's no big deal ... I am not sure why it would be to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 (If the Church is institutionally on-record on cases like this, please correct me. But the point I'm driving towards is, I've seen no proof that the Church does have a policy in this regard other than vague allusions to the Church Handbook of Instructions.)Ok - I can do better than vague.Who May Perform a Civil MarriageMembers who are planning a civil marriage may invite any of the following presiding officers of their Church units to perform the marriage ceremony if civil law authorizes the officer to do so: stake president, mission president, bishop, or branch president. An LDS military chaplain on active duty may also perform the ceremony. Unless contrary to legal requirements, a Church officer may perform a marriage for a member of his unit outside the boundaries of that unit.Those who have been released from these offices may not perform marriages. Other Church officers are not authorized to perform civil marriages.Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 - Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics - 2006 - Page 83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Madriglace, I don't see that as analagous. An analagous situation would be the Church's forbidding ex-primary teachers from teaching in the public school system. LoudmouthMormon, thanks for the quote. I'll have to digest that for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.