“but whereas you “officially” joined another Church, you are technically in definitional apostasy. ”

So be careful with this game.

This marriage thing, is it legal in your state if you preside?, as a citizen or witness or something?

If its legal once they get a marriage license, and there is no real need or a ceremony, then it doesn’t really matter if you then do a religious ceremony as an Elder/teacher Lds, so you don’t need to join any internet church and risk getting into trouble with your Bishop.

By the way if your B does find out, tell him that the Universal Life Church is a modern day Free Masonry unit! should be enough to avoid any disciplinary action.

I dont have the handbook so I have to ask – would this be the case even for this church
as it does not preach anything at all against our beliefs

Being affiliated with this church wouldnt go against you for temple reccommend would it

I think there is basically no chance that anyone is still reading this thread (I just came across it randomly), but I’ll answer your question:

There are only a small handful of actions which, according to the Church Handbook (I have read the book as part of a calling, not a stolen/online copy, thank you!), REQUIRE a disciplinary council. Among them: Officially joining another church.

The handbook makes clear that simply attending another church is not sufficient; but whereas you “officially” joined another Church, you are technically in definitional apostasy.

Whether or not anyone would actually make a stink about this is a different question, so please don’t shoot me. I’m just the messenger.

Especially since you will be performing this as a civil and not as a religious wedding. It would be quite different if you were to stand on a street corner and preach a new gospel… the only question I have is what are you going to do with your ordination after the wedding? Are you keeping it or canceling it?

Could you please enlighten about what specifically this policy change is. Apparently some (including myself) have not heard what this is.

You have said that you don’t plan to inform your Bishop about this, since
he doesn’t have any jurisdiction about marriage in another state. What happens if he finds out about it anyway, disagrees that it’s perfectly OK for an Elder to act as a minister of another church, and asks why you didn’t counsel with him before you went throught with it? Do you have an answer ready, do you think it will satisfy him, and are you ready to accept the consequences in case it doesn’t?

You can perform a civil wedding if you have your authority. No problem. But if you where to say with the power of my priesthood or similar it is not approved by the church since there is only called leaders that should perform a wedding members or not meaning the bishop or stakepresident. When they are released they might have the civil right as here in Sweden, but The church are not approving us to use it since we are relesed.

But if you have the right to perform civil wedding thru a proper institution not using your priesthood it would be appropriate.

But I do think it is a bit tasteless to use that kind off dresscode on thus important occasion, What does that say about your view of marriage and importance of that. -i would prefer more reverence even if it is just by “the authority given me from City counsel or whatever” I would for my own view state my own “standars”.

Good luck in doing it right, hope you find a good choice considering you are asking you probarbly fell unsecure with some parts of this. Usually this is good sign to stay off, not going further, you have probarbly gone over your own border and want others to give some acceptance. Well the source is tha same do you seek answers merely from people or also from your havenly father. You can always get support on these kind of blogs etc.

Live long and prosper anyway,
John H

Danny

I just wanted to give a status report concerning “till death do you part”: nothing about parting at death was mentioned in the ceremonies, and all ecclesiastical language had an eternal perspective. The couple joined right hands at an alter during the vows. The couple is converting to Missouri Synod Lutheranism (the husband’s faith), and they were married in a modern Catholic cathedral and ceremony (the wife’s faith; Mass was held 1 hour after the wedding instead of during the wedding).

I think that what you are doing for your friends is compassionate and should be viewed as what it is, an act of love. I applaud you for your willingness to meet their needs even though it takes you into murky waters concerning priesthood and religious affiliation. However, from the little I’ve been able to get to know you, I know you have given this matter considerable thought, meditation, and prayer. I personally think your decision to “join” another church is just a legal loophole so that you have the authority to perform the marriage service. God knows where your heart lies even though others may not fully understand or accept your decision.

Having said that, I would like to share a brief story about a Chilean poet, his wife, and a BYU professor who happened to be a bishop at the time. As an undergrad, I met a poet in Chile that was related to much more famous poet, a deceased Nobel laureate in fact. I passed along his info to a professor, who in turn met with him during a research trip. Several months later, my wife and I attended a presentation that said professor gave and he invited us out to lunch. (Bear with me, this story is relevant.) In our conversation, we thought it would be really cool to bring this poet up to BYU, which happened several months later.

The professor and the poet became rather close. During another trip to Chile, the poet and his wife asked the professor if he could be their religious adviser. In fact, they called him “Obispo John” (Bishop), although John wasn’t his name. Now, the bishop/professor explained that he held no ecclesiastical authority over them, but that he was perfectly comfortable discussing religion and spirituality with them. They still jokingly referred to him as their “obispo,” and he didn’t do much to dissuade them.

Now, I don’t see a huge difference between this situation and Valoel’s. He got a piece of paper that allows him to legally perform a service, but as far as the relationship between the couple and him, they simply see him as a friend that they respect and revere for his level of spirituality.

Please let us know how it all turns out.

Reference, please.

Mr. Smith took out a Universal Life Church ordination so that he could marry my friend Mr. Kruse to his step-daughter V. French. And wouldn’t you know, like mother, like daughter. My friend Mr. Kruse has had to put up with his wife’s polyandrous indiscretions at least once, when she went to France for a summer without her husband! Polyandry may not been for every woman, but I’ve known at least two women eager to practice it in my lifetime!

Mr. Smith did officiate a very nice ceremony at Fort Leavenworth for Mr. & Mrs. Kruse to-be, and he was able to do so because of the Universal Life Church.

Just another example of the likes you’re associated with through the Universal Life Church (even if I can’t also talk around here about the ULC zombie wedding I went to once *wink*).

No. I would not accept money for performing the ceremony. I would not be comfortable with that for the exact reason you mentioned. I personally don’t like the idea of being paid to give someone service in a faith or religious sense. I’m not knocking anyone else who does it, but I would much rather just enjoy the experience of doing this for them. I don’t want to feel like it’s a job. I have a normal, everyday job.

They did insist on paying for 1 night for me at the hotel where the ceremony and reception is being held.

Reverend Valoel (ULC)
Elder Valoel (LDS)

“Priest” is probably a better title to use with your capacity in the Universal Life Church, this title has a bonus of giving props to your true self & tradition.

My cousin Andrew Hildenbrand has performed a marriage of his friends under the capacity of the Universal Life Church (lay and for no pay, of course [they did drink ale at the reception, though]). Andrew considers himself desirous to be an authentic Christian priest, and he seeks after the doctrines of the 1st century church. He has converted his family away from trinitarianism, they understand the Eloheim to be the grand council of the gods, they have renounced all the churches as being in apostasy, and their father ministers to the family as patriarch of Sundays (with the assistance of his wife in leading lessons, etc.). (I am amazed at how “Mormon” his family has become since adopting 4 Russian orphans 7 years ago, especially since they were so “evangelical Bible Christian” growing up.) Andew has studied at seminaries in Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas, and he specializes in the history of the Hutterite movement in particular and the Restoration movement in general.

I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation.

I’m guessing the local BP would want to do the marriage.

While you’re probably right that “there’s no point in pushing it”, it doesn’t matter what the local Branch President “wants”.

With proper application of your priesthood, you could get the fact of a solemnized marriage recorded at both the State and the Church (redundancy for posterity; the Church will probably do a better job protecting records into the future than the State, especially our church).

I suppose a modern bishop or branch president wouldn’t hold Section 101 of the 1835 edition of the Covenants and Commandments revealed by Joseph Smith, Jr. But according to him, “the solemnization should be performed by the presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest”. “Presiding” in not a qualifier specifying an order of preference, it is used in reference to a particular office, that of “presiding high priest”. If the “or” in that sentence is considered to be a logical or inclusive disjunction, then as both an Elder and a Priest you are more than authorized by Joseph Smith (even if not by the modern Handbook of Instruction) to officiate in the capacity of the Church. Lists of logical disjunctions do not impose an order of preference, they produce criteria to test for valid candidacy in the evaluation of a truth table.

Even the Church Handbook of Instruction says, “Who May Perform a Civil Marriage: … Unless contrary to legal requirements, a Church
officer may perform a marriage for a member of his unit outside the boundaries of that unit. … Civil Marriage for Nonmembers: Authorized Church officers may perform marriages for nonmembers without receiving special
approval.”

Strictly speaking, you are an officer of the Church, being ordained to the office of Elder in the Order of the Melchizedek priesthood. You should be able to be “authorized” by the local branch president without special First Presidency approval, assuming his stake president doesn’t oppose.

But considering all that is said in Scripture and policy, any reasonable and righteous leader in the Church should see the logic in allowing you to perform the marriage on behalf of the Church — if only you want the marriage archived at the world’s greatest genealogical purveyor, the Mormon Church. All necessary arrangements should be able to be made over the phone.

I have a friend in Utah Valley whose daughter recently decided to marry her boyfriend. They wanted a Wiccan marriage, and the boyfriend’s father offered to perform a ceremony. My friend (a very active Mormon) was a bit disturbed and called the Utah County clerk to find out if the marriage would be considered legal. They told her that as long as the couple obtained a valid marriage license, anyone could perform any kind of marriage ceremony to solemnize the marriage as long as that couple recognized that person as having authority to do so. Who knew it would be so easy?