Could A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding?

[Stargazer]

Apples and oranges. Drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are not immoral acts. I've known plenty of LDS owned restaurants that served coffee and tea, too. Last I heard there was not the slightest suggestion that the Word of Wisdom was anything other than a covenant made between you and your Lord -- the idea that a non-member can "break" the Word of Wisdom is a contradiction in terms. The idea that a non-member can break break the Law of Chasity is not.

OK, it's a health suggestion, too. But it is nevertheless a voluntary covenant, as opposed to the Law of Chastity, which is a commandment.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Stargazer

[David T]

I am pretty sure there cannot be a wedding without a female and a male.

Oh, please, don't tell David T. ... He seems to think this has something to do with gay marraige, when it clearly doesn't.

...?

Edited April 3, 2012 by David T

[mercyngrace]

OK, it's a health suggestion, too. But it is nevertheless a voluntary covenant, as opposed to the Law of Chastity, which is a commandment.

Ummm... been to the temple lately? LOC is also a voluntary covenant...

[KevinG]

I figure breaking a covenant is a sin no matter what the covenant.

I also figure respecting and loving my friend no matter what his choices are is not an endorsement of his choices.

What was the greatest of these commandments again?

[TAO]

For those who cannot condone the actions does this mean you would not eat in a place that served alcohol or attend an amusement park that allowed smoking?

No, it means that I'm consciously uncomfortable hanging around them. Especially with smoking... I really can't stand to be around. I don't have hard feelings towards them... and I don't really want them to notice my feelings either... so I just move away.

It seems to me if you want to protest the action of another not attending would be a good plan. But the long term ramifications of snubbing a friend or a child when they have already made up their mind seems counter productive for showing love unfeigned and a missionary attitude.

Of course. But, you know, that going can also be counter-productive. It really depends on the circumstance. It also depends on the people alot. I would not offer any strict guideline as to what you should do; in certain cases, it may be better to go, while in others, it will be better not to go.

By all means if you cannot be happy for someone else who believes differently than you don't show up and sit there with a sour expression on your face.

Well yeah. But remember at the same time, that different people have different ways of reacting to others. And different people have different psychological needs. For some, it may not be so much that you cannot be happy for the other person, but that you are sad because of their decision.

For me, it has to do with personal weakness, and squirmishness. I've always had this problem. I'm not going to bother other people with this problem. If other people have a problem with my problem, I'll ignore them like I do those people who have problems with my other social problems =p. Talk about a predicament of problems though =). That's why, ultimately, I think one of the biggest problem this Earth has is people who get offended too easily. Alas, the best way for me to go about fixing this is being a good example. So I do try to be.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[David T]

I figure breaking a covenant is a sin no matter what the covenant.

Unless they haven't made such a covenant.

There's a difference between doing something God doesn't like, and doing something you have promised God you would not do, with a conviction that such is the will of God. It's the concept of Citizenship - If one doesn't choose to be a citizen, they are not fully accountable for its laws, nor receive full benefits of citizenship, either.

Edited April 3, 2012 by David T

[TAO]

I figure breaking a covenant is a sin no matter what the covenant.

I also figure respecting and loving my friend no matter what his choices are is not an endorsement of his choices.

What was the greatest of these commandments again?

Kevin, you can love someone without attending their ceremony, that you can. It isn't an easy to make decision; it should not be simplified to this, I think.

[Stargazer]

Vookman said:

Others may have noted this, but not to be too obtuse, I am pretty sure there cannot be a wedding without a female and a male. Gay wedding is sort of like a boiling ice cube, or bright darkness. Redefinitions don't change the meaning of the act.

I said that David T already had an answer (in bold):

Oh, please, don't tell David T. He's got a great answer for that one. It would go something along the lines of "it would TOO!" Or Storm Rider. He seems to think this has something to do with gay marraige, when it clearly doesn't.

David T's response to Vookman:

Legally, yes they do. They don't, however, effect religious rites or statuses that happen to go by the same name.

Which fulfills the spirit of my prediction. "it would TOO!" = "yes they do"

My crowing about the prediction having succeeded:

See!! What did I tell you!

David T redacts my prediction -- to leave himself being predicted to bring up Storm Rider's shtick:

Oh, please, don't tell David T. ... He seems to think this has something to do with gay marraige, when it clearly doesn't.

David T's reaction to his redacted version of Stargazer's comment:

...?

No, no, I didn't put Storm Rider's words in your mouth, er, pen, er, whatever, David, YOU did!

Please note that I am rolling on the floor laughing my ... well, just suffice it to say that somebody needs to ban me from this thread before I get completely out of control.

[Stargazer]

Ummm... been to the temple lately? LOC is also a voluntary covenant...

No, it is not. The temple covenant is an elevation of the COMMANDMENT. You opt voluntarily for a stricter version of it, in my view. When God said "Thous shalt not commit adultery" He did not restrict it to the Israelites and everyone else got off scot free.

[David T]

Which fulfills the spirit of my prediction.

It's not fulfilling a prediction if the prediction occurs after the comment has been made

But really - if you're not referring to his comment of same sex weddings, then please clarify what you meant by "He thinks this has something to do with gay marriage". What doesn't have to do with gay marriage that I appear to think does? Perhaps I'm super obtuse, but I've tried to figure out what else you could be referring to. You're not being clear. Your follow up post with all the quotes was even less coherent. Your guffawing on the floor doesn't clarify the meaning of your mockery.

Edited April 3, 2012 by David T

[David T]

When God said "Thous shalt not commit adultery" He did not restrict it to the Israelites and everyone else got off scot free.

Actually, the Jewish community even today doesn't view The 10 as being binding on Gentiles. It was indeed part of a Covenant Law. The Doctrine and Covenants did, however, re-affirm it for the Latter-day Saints.

That doesn't make it a Good Thing by any means. But the degree of accountability is certainly distinct.

Edited April 3, 2012 by David T

[altersteve]

Not enjoying the arguing that's going on here. I made this thread to have a respectful discussion, not to watch everyone fight about absolutely nothing.

[KevinG]

Sorry Steve - I'm not trying to be argumentative.

[MorningStar]

Sorry Steve - I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Yeah huh!

[Cobalt-70]

Others may have noted this, but not to be too obtuse, I am pretty sure there cannot be a wedding without a female and a male. Gay wedding is sort of like a boiling ice cube, or bright darkness. Redefinitions don't change the meaning of the act.

But according to Oxford, the earliest known meaning of the word "to wed" meant simply to engage generally in a covenant. The word comes from an old Germanic word to pledge or to wager. The general covenant usage is actually still in use, which is why two corporations can "wed." It is no redefinition to refer to a covenant between two gay men or two gay women as a "wedding."

[KevinG]

Let me give a bit more detail on my Gay friend and why I would attend a special event (like a wedding) of his even though I don't believe as he does about the practice.

We were the best of friends growing up. When I first converted to the LDS Church as a young man he was terrified I would shun him or start to treat him differently. So terrified in fact that he went into a rant one night and said he could not be my friend if I joined the LDS Church. I went home and prayed to Heavenly Father that I would not lose my friend but that I would give up even my best friend for Him if He required it.

The next morning my friend called and apologized for the rant acknowledging that I was the same person before and after my conversion - and he could accept me no matter what choices I made.

Years later he came out of the closet (sort of). We never openly discuss his sexuality and he doesn't question my faith. We respect what we have in common and love each other as friends. He has always been respectful and supportive of my strange lifestyle including my choice to have 7 children. He adores my family and they adore him. As the kids get older they often ask about him and we discuss the fact that he is a gay man, but that has no bearing on our love for him and his for us.

Because of my acceptance of him he had grown in respect for my beliefs and even admitted I am a better man for them. He also doesn't feel the need to hide the fact he has a Mormon friend or act in opposition to my faith.

We share the large percentage of our lives where we have a common values (and we have lots of common values). We respect the parts where we don't agree and don't try to change each other. Neither one of us is each others child and we have no need to approve or sanction each others life.

Now if he asked me to be at a ceremony signifying his commitment to the man he's been partners with for decades I would attend.

If he asked me to become a Mormon we'd have another discussion all together.

The two do not have to be confused.

[KevinG]

Yeah huh!

Says you!!!!!!!!!!!

[mercyngrace]

No, it is not. The temple covenant is an elevation of the COMMANDMENT. You opt voluntarily for a stricter version of it, in my view. When God said "Thous shalt not commit adultery" He did not restrict it to the Israelites and everyone else got off scot free.

The Ten commandments were received by covenant. Exodus 19.

It's interesting that you see disobeying the LOC as 'getting off scot free'. I would suggest that being taught the LOC as part of the covenant was a blessing, not some sort of hindrance.

edit: Oops, I see David T makes the same point above. Thanks, David.

Edited April 3, 2012 by mercyngrace

[selek1]

Not enjoying the arguing that's going on here. I made this thread to have a respectful discussion, not to watch everyone fight about absolutely nothing.

Do you prefer a respectful discussion, or an honest one?

For the record, I don't believe that a faithful Latter-day Saint should attend a gay wedding- any more than they would attend a drunken Bacchanalia, a lynch mob, or a public orgy.

The values being "celebrated" and being displayed at such events are in flat contradiction to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and eternal (Celestial) law.

By attending- even silently- you are giving your tacit consent and approval to the goings-on.

It is said that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The corollary is that "All that is required for perversity and sin to spread is for good men to sit and smile and nod politely."

Whether or not an otherwise faithful Latter-day Saint can remain in good standing is between that member and his or her Bishop. It is not my stewardship.

But I will note that one of the Temple recommend questions is, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

By showing up to such an event- smiling, nodding, and pretending it's legit- you are offering your tacit support and approval.

Ask yourself- knowing that you will one day be called to answer Christ in the same manner- does that not equate to supporting practices that are contrary to the accepted teachings of the Church?

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[altersteve]

Sorry Steve - I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Not you, Kevin. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. But I guess this is a pretty sensitive topic.

Not trying to act like a mod or anything, by the way.

[KevinG]

Do you prefer a respectful discussion, or an honest one?

I'm guessing he was going for C) All of the Above.

The phrase "I was just being honest" has been used as a cover for some of the most vile and contentious arguments I've witnessed.

...or as we say in the South... Bless his heart.

Edited April 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Ares]

Not trying to act like a mod or anything, by the way.

Would you like the position?

Please respect AlterSteve's request and keep the discussion respectful.

[wenglund]

For those who would not attend a gay wedding and have provided the reason of the ceremony not being authorized does this mean you would not attend the marriage of a friend married in a civil ceremony or a ceremony from another religion?

My reason for not attending a so-called "same-sex marriage" would be because I find the practice morally objectionable, and not because it wasn't authorized. I don't view traditional marriages in other religions as morally objectionable. So, I would answer, no.

For the same reason, I wouldn't drive someone to get an abortion, though I wouldn't object to taking people of other faiths for typical childbirth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

I'm guessing he was going for C) All of the Above.

I tend to agree.

The phrase "I was just being honest" has been used as a cover for some of the most vile and contentious arguments I've witnessed.

This is true. It is equally true that "just being nice" has been used to excuse or gloss over some of the most vile and evil behavior in human history.

...or as we say in the South... Bless his heart.

ROFL- boy, if I had a nickle for every time I heard that growing up....

Ironically, though, "Bless his/her" heart is a means of pretending to be nice while saying the meanest things...

"Bless his heart, he'd lose a battle of wits with a dead mule." or "Bless her heart, she's got a smile like a picket fence."

For myself, I prefer an honest wolf over a flattering carpet-bagger any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[selek1]

My reason for not attending a so-called "same-sex marriage" would be because I find the practice morally objectionable, and not because it wasn't authorized. I don't view traditional marriages in other religions as morally objectionable. So, I would answer, no.

For the same reason, I wouldn't drive someone to get an abortion, though I wouldn't object to taking people of other faiths for typical childbirth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dagnabit, Wade!

I'm outta rep points!

+1