altersteve Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 ...and remain in good standing? This is a question I've been thinking about lately. I only ask it out of curiosity.What are your thoughts on this?
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 ...and remain in good standing? This is a question I've been thinking about lately. I only ask it out of curiosity.What are your thoughts on this?Yes, someone can attend a gay wedding and remain in good standing. No problem. There are lds with gay and lesbian friends and I am sure that they wouldn't refuse going to a wedding if invited. We also need to remember that some lds have gay children. The same would apply.
Storm Rider Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 ...and remain in good standing? This is a question I've been thinking about lately. I only ask it out of curiosity.What are your thoughts on this?Why would they not be in good standing? As disciples of Jesus Christ we are sources of peace and non-judgment in the world. We stand with Christ not to accuse the sinner (that would primarily be us), but we invite all to come unto Christ and to sin no more. We are just as capable of sitting down with a gay couple for dinner as we would sit down with a Bishop and his wife. Steve, I am somewhat surprised by the question. What caused you to think it would not be an appropriate thing to do. Christ was accused of sitting down with sinners and publicans and had no problem. What changed?
LDSToronto Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Yes. They could not be a groom however.But they could be a bride
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 This is an interesting question. A subtle difference between the conception of weddings in Mormonism and the conception of weddings in mainstream western society is that in Mormonism, a wedding is a private ceremony were the couple makes covenants to God. In a mainstream wedding, the point is that the couple is making covenants with each other, and all of the witnesses and attendees are making covenants to the couple as well. This is a big deal: by attending, you are covenanting that you will recognize and support the marriage. If somebody can't in good conscience support the institution of same-sex marriage, how could they support a specific same-sex marriage? If somebody isn't willing to recognize and support a same-sex marriage, I'd suggest he or she shouldn't attend the ceremony.
mercyngrace Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 of courseIf somebody can't in good conscience support the institution of same-sex marriage, how could they support a specific same-sex marriage? If somebody isn't willing to recognize and support a same-sex marriage, I'd suggest he or she shouldn't attend the ceremony.I don't believe that infant baptism is valid but I've still attended the ceremony. 3
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I don't believe that infant baptism is valid but I've still attended the ceremony.What if you were at a same-sex marriage, and the officiator asked the audience to promise to recognize, honor, and support the marriage. Would you say yes? If you did, could you then in good conscience support the Church's efforts to make such marriages illegal?
bluebell Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 This is an interesting question. A subtle difference between the conception of weddings in Mormonism and the conception of weddings in mainstream western society is that in Mormonism, a wedding is a private ceremony were the couple makes covenants to God. In a mainstream wedding, the point is that the couple is making covenants with each other, and all of the witnesses and attendees are making covenants to the couple as well. This is a big deal: by attending, you are covenanting that you will recognize and support the marriage. If somebody can't in good conscience support the institution of same-sex marriage, how could they support a specific same-sex marriage? If somebody isn't willing to recognize and support a same-sex marriage, I'd suggest he or she shouldn't attend the ceremony.I've never attended any non-mormon wedding where anyone besides the bride and groom believed they were making covenants in regards to the marriage. It might be that way in a specific wedding where the couple purposefully makes that a part of the ceremony, but i don't believe that it's at all the 'given' that you are making it sound like.In fact, most people are fine inviting a friend and 'guest' to weddings and it would be odd for the couple to expect these complete strangers to be making covenants regarding their marriage just because they are in the audience. 1
Messenger Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I don't see a problem with attending a wedding. In fact, I think it should be part of our efforts in reaching out to others. We may not agree with gay marriage, but that should exclude us from inviting others to be a part of our lives. Unfortunately, I believe that there are many who do not agree with me.
cdowis Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I would consider it to be a sign that I approve of their promise to each other, not only the ceremony but their personal behaviour afterwards. However, I may hang around for the refreshments.
mercyngrace Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 What if you were at a same-sex marriage, and the officiator asked the audience to promise to recognize, honor, and support the marriage. Would you say yes? If you did, could you then in good conscience support the Church's efforts to make such marriages illegal?I'm not sure how to support a marriage but I do know how to support individuals.I attended a temple wedding about which I had strong reservations. Not only that, I hosted the pre-wedding dinner, post nuptial luncheon, and housed the groom's family even though in my heart I feared he was going to break the heart of his bride. When they were dating I expressed my concerns in a loving way but once the bride made her decision, I did everything I could to support her.I did all this because I love my niece. Period. And not only that, I loved her fiance enough to want the best for him also. I prayed for their success and continued to treat him like a beloved family member even after their divorce.I would do the same for anyone I care about.I don't get to make other people's choices but I do get to treat them in such a way that if, their choices lead to a fall, they have no doubt that my arms are a safe place to land.I would do the same for any friend or loved one, no matter who they married.Do I see a conflict? No. 4
Sky Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 A member could attend a gay wedding and remain in good standing. But some who have traditional beliefs about marriage might find it uncomfortable. Also, I would advise against it to a member who struggles with same-sex attraction and is trying to live Church standards. I would treat it more on a case-by-case basis. It might not be a good thing in some cases, but in other cases it could be fine. When in doubt, it never hurts to ask your bishop or pray about it, in my opinion.
LeSellers Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Yes. They could not be a groom however.Couldn't be the "bride", either.Same-sex "marriage" is a scam and a sham.Lehi Edited April 2, 2012 by LeSellers 1
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I've never attended any non-mormon wedding where anyone besides the bride and groom believed they were making covenants in regards to the marriage.It might be that way in a specific wedding where the couple purposefully makes that a part of the ceremony, but i don't believe that it's at all the 'given' that you are making it sound like.In fact, most people are fine inviting a friend and 'guest' to weddings and it would be odd for the couple to expect these complete strangers to be making covenants regarding their marriage just because they are in the audience.A congregational "declaration of consent" is a traditional part of Episcopalian marriages. (e.g. “Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage? People We will.” http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/ulcm/wed04.html)Lots of modern ceremonies contain some sort of explicit congregational affirmation (e.g. http://www.kogcc.net/index.php?p=1_81_CHRISTIAN-GENERIC-WEDDING).I was originally introduced to the concept that all wedding ceremonies have an implicit declaration or affirmation of consent by Dr. Laura Schlesinger on her radio show. Somebody had called up with some bizarre question of wanting to have a relationship with a friend’s husband, and Dr. Laura’s first question back to her was whether or not she’d attended the wedding ceremony. She had, and Dr. Laura’s angle was that even if she didn’t respect the couple’s marriage vows to each other, she wouldn’t be off the hook because by attending the ceremony she was under covenant herself to recognize and support the marriage.I admit it's a subtle point that not everybody thinks about. But if somebody accepted an invitation from to a wedding ceremony and then donated $1,000 "protect the institution of marriage" by making that particular marriage illegal, I wouldn't begrudge the couple for feeling betrayed.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I'm not sure how to support a marriage but I do know how to support individuals.I attended a temple wedding about which I had strong reservations. Not only that, I hosted the pre-wedding dinner, post nuptial luncheon, and housed the groom's family even though in my heart I feared he was going to break the heart of his bride. When they were dating I expressed my concerns in a loving way but once the bride made her decision, I did everything I could to support her.I did all this because I love my niece. Period. And not only that, I loved her fiance enough to want the best for him also. I prayed for their success and continued to treat him like a beloved family member even after their divorce.I would do the same for anyone I care about.I don't get to make other people's choices but I do get to treat them in such a way that if, their choices lead to a fall, they have no doubt that my arms are a safe place to land.I would do the same for any friend or loved one, no matter who they married.Do I see a conflict? No.You are a good person; well said.
bluebell Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I admit it's a subtle point that not everybody thinks about. But if somebody accepted an invitation from to a wedding ceremony and then donated $1,000 "protect the institution of marriage" by making that particular marriage illegal, I wouldn't begrudge the couple for feeling betrayed.I could understand where they were coming from, but on the other hand, hopefully they knew how the person felt about gay marriage before they asked them to attend (hopefully the person hadn't kept it a secret from them). If they did know, then i think it would be a bit self absorbed to feel betrayed that their friend wanted to both support a loved one and be able to stay true to their own beliefs.I kind of look at it like when people i know and love have gotten pregnant out of wedlock (and saw nothing wrong with it). I might (do) completely disagree with the lifestyle they are living, but i'll still go to the babyshower or babysit later if they need me to while continuing to be vocal (in the proper context) about my belief that doing such is a sin. I would hope my friends and family wouldn't feel betrayed by that though.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) I could understand where they were coming from, but on the other hand, hopefully they knew how the person felt about gay marriage before they asked them to attend (hopefully the person hadn't kept it a secret from them). If they did know, then i think it would be a bit self absorbed to feel betrayed that their friend wanted to both support a loved one and be able to stay true to their own beliefs.I kind of look at it like when people i know and love have gotten pregnant out of wedlock (and saw nothing wrong with it). I might (do) completely disagree with the lifestyle they are living, but i'll still go to the babyshower or babysit later if they need me to while continuing to be vocal (in the proper context) about my belief that doing such is a sin. I would hope my friends and family wouldn't feel betrayed by that though.I get your point, but what your analogy fails to capture is the inherent conflict between supporting, celebrating, and recognising a specific same-sex marriage while simultaneously opposing and condemning all same-sex marriages.Anyway, my point isn't that Mormon's shouldn't attend same-sex weddings, only that I find the question interesting and can imagine why somebody would be politically incorrect and answer no, they should not. That you'd be willing to attend is wonderful. Edited April 2, 2012 by Analytics
bluebell Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I get your point, but what your analogy fails to capture is the inherent conflict between supporting, celebrating, and recognising a specific same-sex marriage while simultaneously opposing and condemning all same-sex marriages.The analogy works if one looks at attending a gay marriage as supporting the individual involved, and not the marriage (as MnG has already stated). Just as attending the babyshower for a couple who is living together and having children can be viewed as supporting the individuals involved and not the living situation.Anyway, my point isn't that Mormon's shouldn't attend same-sex weddings, only that I find the question interesting and can imagine why somebody would be politically incorrect and answer no, they should not. That you'd be willing to attend is wonderful.I would hope that my family and friends would love and support me in an endeavor even if we disagreed about how God felt about it. Because i would want that for myself, i try to give it to others.
Jaybear Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 At BYU, the so called "honor code" used to bar homosexual advocacy, which was:Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.As one who attends a wedding is also referred to as a celebrant, one could argue that attending/celebrating a gay wedding constitutes advocacy. BYU removed the advocacy bar from the so called honor code last year. Since BYU imposes imposes on its students a standard of conduct much stricter than imposes on general members, I can only conclude that a member in good standing could celebrate the gay wedding of friends and loved ones and still be considered to be in good standing.In fact, it strikes me as a "no brainer," such that only those who would say something foolish like "You can't be a democrat and be a member in good standing" would see as an issue worth discussing.Perhaps the better question is whether by attending a gay wedding you are endorsing/promoting immorality.
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 This is an interesting question. A subtle difference between the conception of weddings in Mormonism and the conception of weddings in mainstream western society is that in Mormonism, a wedding is a private ceremony were the couple makes covenants to God. In a mainstream wedding, the point is that the couple is making covenants with each other, and all of the witnesses and attendees are making covenants to the couple as well. This is a big deal: by attending, you are covenanting that you will recognize and support the marriage. You may be wrong on this. Most people attending a non-mormon wedding do not see the wedding ceremony this way at all. What they do see are two people making a commitment to eachother. I don't know anyone who sees themselves as making covenants when they attend a non-mormon wedding.
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 A congregational "declaration of consent" is a traditional part of Episcopalian marriages. (e.g. “Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage? People We will.” http://www.auburn.ed...ulcm/wed04.html)Lots of modern ceremonies contain some sort of explicit congregational affirmation (e.g. http://www.kogcc.net...GENERIC-WEDDING).I believe that the common question is: does anyone oppose this union of two individuals? Usually no one raises their hand regardless of how they feel.
Stargazer Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 A congregational "declaration of consent" is a traditional part of Episcopalian marriages. (e.g. “Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage? People We will.” http://www.auburn.ed...ulcm/wed04.html)Lots of modern ceremonies contain some sort of explicit congregational affirmation (e.g. http://www.kogcc.net...GENERIC-WEDDING).I was originally introduced to the concept that all wedding ceremonies have an implicit declaration or affirmation of consent by Dr. Laura Schlesinger on her radio show. Somebody had called up with some bizarre question of wanting to have a relationship with a friend’s husband, and Dr. Laura’s first question back to her was whether or not she’d attended the wedding ceremony. She had, and Dr. Laura’s angle was that even if she didn’t respect the couple’s marriage vows to each other, she wouldn’t be off the hook because by attending the ceremony she was under covenant herself to recognize and support the marriage.I admit it's a subtle point that not everybody thinks about. But if somebody accepted an invitation from to a wedding ceremony and then donated $1,000 "protect the institution of marriage" by making that particular marriage illegal, I wouldn't begrudge the couple for feeling betrayed.Dr. Laura is a good person, but this is a personal opinion. Perhaps it is a "nice" opinion, even, but while marriage is something which everyone should support and uphold, what is described here is something only called a marriage, by way of twisting the language. As Lehi points out there is no such thing as "gay" marriage, unless the principals are a happy man and woman.I would probably never attend a ceremony in which two persons of the same sex were to go through a sham ceremony that they were pleased to call a "wedding". But even if I did, my membership in the Church would not be in question.
Grundelwalken Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 BYU removed the advocacy bar from the so called honor code last year. Not to hijack the thread, but what is your heartburn with the honor code?And to answer the OP, just as I had no problem attending the drunken festival that was my brother's wedding, I would not have an issue with being involved in a "gay" marriage (but as Lehi states, this is not technically possible). I love my brother and I'm sure if one of my neighbors (many of whom are of the gay persuasion) invited me to a commitment ceremony, I would attend out of respect for our friendship. They know my stance since most used to be members and my various callings have taken me to their homes for one reason or another. They are my friends and I would be there to enjoy the occasion. MW
David T Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Couldn't be the "bride", either.Same-sex "marriage" is a scam and a sham.LehiNo, as a political institution and contract, it is legally binding union of two individuals in many states.While the religious concept of marriage definitely is defined differently by many people with different faith traditions, the Government isn't defining or redefining Religious Marriage. They're instituting a government contract, and associated benefits.While clearly many will not find the religious and political definitions to be equal, and many will find it less than convenient that the two definitions differ, that does not make one version a 'sham' version - it's simply a very different version.I personally think the biggest problem is our linking our religious definition of Marriage with the Political Establishment's version. While I understand supporting one while it is consistent with our beliefs, it is not necessary in any way for our faith for there to be a political institution to mark approval of our chosen religious family unions. The government benefits and recognition are nice, but not necessary.As for religious services that choose to acknowledge it, I don't see it as being any different than attending a Baptism, or a Confirmation service of someone from another faith. Even though our scriptures denounce the concept of Infant Baptism, does that make it morally wrong to attend the performance of such a thing in another faith to show support to family members or friends? Does that make what they are doing decietful and a 'sham'?Just as in their faith tradition they are either making commitments to their God, or having commitments made on their behalf, Gay Marriage - as a secular institution - is making a government contract, and when brought into religious services, is a dedication to fulfill their own personal convictions.While one may not agree with their degree of correctness in regards to an understanding of 'correct' religious doctrine, I think calling it a 'sham', or saying it has zero degree of validity for anyone is not accurate, or helpful. Edited April 2, 2012 by David T
Recommended Posts