Could A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding?

[Stargazer]

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

Well, you will have trust me on this one, but I was writing it WHILE you were fulfilling it, and I did not cheat and look to see that you had already done so. The timestamp should bear me out, or at least make it look like a reasonable claim.

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.

The "He" in this case had to do with something Storm Rider said earlier, which also pertained to Vookman's post. I was economizing and bringing you both into the same post. Sorry if this wasn't clear. I apologize also that my post with all the quotes was not as coherent as it could have been --- I was in a tearing hurry to put it out there before I got banned. I think it would have required a flowchart to make sense, given that I was trying to do three things at once..

I was not mocking. I was laughing at my own jokes.

Well, not all of it was joking, but some of it was. Don't strain yourselves trying to figure out which are supposed to be funny, and which are, um, funny, if you know what I mean.

I better quit now while I am ahead.

[Stargazer]

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.

Sorry, I didn't think we were arguing. I am trying to have a discussion of an aspect of this thing you brought up. I hold David T and Storm Rider in the highest respect; I am merely trying to challenge them on their assertions. They are responding to my challenge. Or perhaps trying to figure out what I am saying. Or at least David is; Storm Rider has taken a powder.

I actually think the discussion has been quite respectful so far. You have been here long enough to know what kind of a knock-down drag-out full-on donnybrook this subject can create.

We need california boy and Daniel2 in here to get things into better perspective, though.

[Damien the Leper]

If a parent can't set aside their own bias for the sake of just being there for their child then they dont deserve to be a parent to that child. I'm not suggesting that they support the decisions the child makes but to be there and show love. If its "tough love" to refrain from attendance or showing compassion or mercy then keep that love to yourself. No one wants or needs it.

[Stargazer]

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.

So, you and David both agree that for non-covenant people adultery is nothing? Interesting.

What about the rest of the 10C? Murder? Theft? Disrespecting one's parents? Those are all just neutral actions, are they?

I beg to differ.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a non-covenant person who murdered his parents, stole their goods, and seduced his brother's wife. He dies and comes in for the judgment. Since he never made a covenant to obey the Ten Commandments, which forbids that which he did, is he to be held accountable for his actions or not? If the covenant is the thing, he does not. He gets off scot-free, and doesn't even need the Atonement. If these are eternal laws, then regardless of the covenant he is accountable and must stand up for his deeds -- and desparately needs the Atonement.

The covenant to obey the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, involves an offer of contract, and an acceptance of that contract. God will fulfill His side of the contract, if the human fulfills his. The consideration on the human's side is obedience. The consideration on God's side is Eternal Life, with the Atonement of Jesus Christ as the Guarantor (meaning, that if the human fails at obedience, yet fulfills the terms of repentance, he is rescued from the abrogation of the contract).

The ones who are lawless, meaning they never knew the Law, nor Jesus Christ, are nevertheless subject to the Law's requirements, and will be subject to the Law's provisions if they are violated. You've heard it before: "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse." At the Judgment bar the accused will not be able to successfully argue "Hey, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to murder, rape, and pillage!!" You think that God will just give him a pass, based on that? Nope. He cannot. It does say somewhere that the Lawless will be beaten with fewer stripes, but doesn't say they get off. They also get no Eternal Life. That's why there is a time allowed to them to be taught and to repent after death -- because otherwise God would be a respecter of persons, and cease to be God, incidentally.

I hope I am not being unclear in all this.

[selek1]

Deleted

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

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.

It's your thread, sir. You can close it if you deign to do so. I consider that if you asked a disruptive person to depart the thread, even though you aren't a mod, they should respect the thread and you enough to depart as you request. Seems only fair.

[Stargazer]

Would you like the position?

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

Are you accepting nominations?

[selek1]

If a parent can't set aside their own bias for the sake of just being there for their child then they dont deserve to be a parent to that child. I'm not suggesting that they support the decisions the child makes but to be there and show love. If its "tough love" to refrain from attendance or showing compassion or mercy then keep that love to yourself. No one wants or needs it.

Does that standard also hold for other forms of self-destructive behavior?

Does "love" require me to be there when a daughter with a cutting disorder mutliates her own flesh?

Does "love" require me to be there when a son with a cocaine addiction is shooting up?

Does "love" require me to hold the bottle while my brother drinks himself into an alcholic coma?

"Tough love" means having the strength to say 'no' when your child is doing something harmful.

"Tough love" means having the strength to put what is right for your child ahead of their momentary wants.

"Tough love" means having the strength and the courage to tell the truth even when its unpopular or not politically correct.

Your arrogance and presumption is DEEPLY offensive. The ignorance you display is no less so.

How many children do YOU have, Valentinus?

How many nights have YOU spent on your knees praying over a sick child?

How many nights have YOU lain awake worrying because your child is late coming home?

How many floors have YOU walked to quiet a restless child, quiet a colic, or soothe a nightmare?

How many times has YOUR baby cried on your shoulder because people can be turds and because the world isn't fair?

Unless and until you have held that squalling infant for the three-in-the-morning feeding, suffered through the bruises, scrapes, and hard-knocks of first two-wheelers, first-crushes, first-dates, and first heart-break, you are SINGULARLY UNQUALIFIED to lecture me about what does and does not constitute a good or "deserving" parent.

Something that's been lost on this generation is this simple truth: Parenthood (like the Priesthood) is about serving others.

Both have their rewards (both tangible and not).

But no one "deserves" to be a parent.

It is a blessing and a sacred covenant from a merciful God- not an indulgence to be taken for granted.

Unless and until you've wept and bled for your child- until you've laid your own heart and soul and wellbeing on the altar for your baby- you need to sit down and shut up.

Editted for spelling and the sake of my blood pressure.

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[mercyngrace]

So, you and David both agree that for non-covenant people adultery is nothing? Interesting.

What about the rest of the 10C? Murder? Theft? Disrespecting one's parents? Those are all just neutral actions, are they?

I beg to differ.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a non-covenant person who murdered his parents, stole their goods, and seduced his brother's wife. He dies and comes in for the judgment. Since he never made a covenant to obey the Ten Commandments, which forbids that which he did, is he to be held accountable for his actions or not? If the covenant is the thing, he does not. He gets off scot-free, and doesn't even need the Atonement. If these are eternal laws, then regardless of the covenant he is accountable and must stand up for his deeds -- and desparately needs the Atonement.

The covenant to obey the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, involves an offer of contract, and an acceptance of that contract. God will fulfill His side of the contract, if the human fulfills his. The consideration on the human's side is obedience. The consideration on God's side is Eternal Life, with the Atonement of Jesus Christ as the Guarantor (meaning, that if the human fails at obedience, yet fulfills the terms of repentance, he is rescued from the abrogation of the contract).

The ones who are lawless, meaning they never knew the Law, nor Jesus Christ, are nevertheless subject to the Law's requirements, and will be subject to the Law's provisions if they are violated. You've heard it before: "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse." At the Judgment bar the accused will not be able to successfully argue "Hey, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to murder, rape, and pillage!!" You think that God will just give him a pass, based on that? Nope. He cannot. It does say somewhere that the Lawless will be beaten with fewer stripes, but doesn't say they get off. They also get no Eternal Life. That's why there is a time allowed to them to be taught and to repent after death -- because otherwise God would be a respecter of persons, and cease to be God, incidentally.

I hope I am not being unclear in all this.

Are you familiar with the term "Straw man"?

I never,not once, said that the LOC is "nothing" and David explicitly stated that violating it is not a good thing.

What I said is that it was entered into by covenant and I gave a scripture reference. Why wrest ye the scriptures?

[Stargazer]

I'm a bit confused- at what point was " better perspective" redefined to mean "avowed apostates promoting and enabling self-indulgent immorality"?

I can respect the arguuments of people such as MnG, David T, and Storm Rider- however much we disagree- because they are at least arguing in good faith and charity. Their concern is altruistic rather than self-serving.

Shall we also invite in Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt to get their take on what moral people could and should embrace?

The avowed apostates could stand in for the posited child or best friend who is having the gay wedding and in good part wishes to invite their LDS parent or friend to be there to celebrate their joy. Unless you think this discussion cannot bear their particular perspectives?

Look, I wouldn't attend a gay wedding if it were my own child's. And Darth Vader can say what he wants about it, my response is "stick it in your ear" -- if you can find one. But there is another side to this, a side that I cannot fairly represent. CB and D2 are among the few who can represent it, and even if you think I am uttering Betelgeuse three times, I don't doubt that they can add to the discussion, rather than detract from it. I say can. Doesn't mean they will. I mean, my own contribution here could be seen as divisive and not particularly helpful, in some respects -- everyone has his or her off moments. But whatever.

What does Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt have to do with it? Neither have ever been LDS, to the best of my knowledge. Asking themto weigh in on a matter of whether an LDS member could in good conscience attend a gay wedding isn't even reasonable.

[selek1]

The avowed apostates could stand in for the posited child or best friend who is having the gay wedding and in good part wishes to invite their LDS parent or friend to be there to celebrate their joy. Unless you think this discussion cannot bear their particular perspectives?

Can the discussion bear their presence? Certainly.

But we also need to state clearly that their perspectives are biased and motivated both by self interest and an ideology alien to LDS belief.

But there is another side to this, a side that I cannot fairly represent. CB and D2 are among the few who can represent it,

I'm not sure that's accurate. Both CB and D2 have publically set themselves in opposition to the teachings of the Church and demanded that the Church "repent" of the "evil" it has done.

As such, they are not competent to represent the interests of the "innocent" wedding goers who simply wish to have their family in attendance at a seminal event in their lives.

I don't doubt that they can add to the discussion, rather than detract from it. I say can. Doesn't mean they will.

I agree- but given their own agendas and posting histories, I sincerely and singularly doubt that they can.

I applaud you for the sincerity and open-mindedness of the invitation- and I would welcome such a contribution to this thread. History, however, has repeatedly demonstrated that CB and D2 are not the candidates for that laudible task.

What does Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt have to do with it? Neither have ever been LDS, to the best of my knowledge. Asking them to weigh in on a matter of whether an LDS member could in good conscience attend a gay wedding isn't even reasonable.

Like both CB and D2, Hefner and Flynt are purveyors and promulgators of immorality (in the case of the former, pornography).

The comparison is apt because all four have a vested interest in seeing the LDS standard of morality eroded.

In point of fact, Hefner and Flynt would be more neutral because they have not rejected the standard of the Church.

D2 and CB have.

[selek1]

The discussion about CB and D2 is an irrelevant digression, and I repent of my part in instigating it.

I deleted the earlier post (before I saw Stargazer's response) for that reason.

For those who have forgotten, the topic is:

"Could (should) A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding (and still remain a member in good standing?"

The answer, depending upon one's Bishop and one's own conscience is clearly "Yes- they could".

The rest is a matter of private conscience and interpretation.

As to the matter of whether or not a member should- my answer remains "no".

Your mileage may vary.

[frankenstein]

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.

All this has happened before all this will happen again.

Vook, what definition of marriage are you referring too? There have been several throughout the ages.

As to the OP, Elder Oaks gave wise counsel generally on these types of situations, it was his talk about families and wayward children - he stated that complete acceptance of behavior or shunning were not the.appropriate paths.

Edited April 3, 2012 by frankenstein

[selek1]

All this has happened before all this will happen again.

Vook, what definition of marriage are you referring too? There have been several throughout the ages.

Whatever definition he is using, the only one that is relevant to faithful Latter-day Saints can be found here.

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

(To Selek) I'm not sure how you can, both, leave it as a matter of conscience and then firmly state a member should not attend (unless you are speaking only for yourself?).. Otherwise, it seems contradictory..

Edited April 3, 2012 by Libs

[Stargazer]

Are you familiar with the term "Straw man"?

I never,not once, said that the LOC is "nothing" and David explicitly stated that violating it is not a good thing.

What I said is that it was entered into by covenant and I gave a scripture reference. Why wrest ye the scriptures?

Yes, ma'am, I am familiar with the term "Straw Man".

If you mean to say that my understanding is that you and David think the LOC is "nothing", well, that is kind of what it sounded like for certain classes of people, namely those who haven't entered into a covenant to obey it. It is not a straw man if I make a statement of my understanding of what you said, even if it wasn't what you meant. If you really didn't mean that, then I stand corrected. But that is what it sounded like, and that is what I was responding to.

Allow me to requote the relative points.

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.

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

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.

Here is what I got out of the above quotes.

A voluntary covenant implies that one may choose not to make the covenant. And David said that the Israelites did not consider the 10 Commandments as binding on Gentiles. You explicitly agreed with David's assertion.

So, even if one says it isn't a "Good Thing" to do that which the 10C prohibits, it sounds nevertheless as if both of you are saying that the Lawless person is free from the consequences of breaking the 10C, because the Lawless person is by definition a non-covenant person, and no obligation exists to keep a covenant one has not made.

If I have misunderstood you, then fine. Please make yourselves more clear. My assertion is simply this: the Law of God is binding upon all His children, whether or not a particular one of them has heard that law, or made that covenant, and the consequence of disobedience is set in stone, unless by way of Christ's Atonement and repentance the Lawless one finds the way out.

[Stargazer]

OK, let me do as Selek1 has done and get off the tangent I introduced. I will not respond further to anyone chasing that tangent.

Back to the OP, I do not consider it appropriate for me to attend a gay wedding, no matter whose gay wedding it is. And I'm not going to refer to anyone's gay relationship as a "marriage" either, whether by action or by word. That means, no, I will not send a card, no I will not issue "congratulations", no I will not give a gift. If the persons in that relationship or anyone else for that matter thinks I am a terrible person and a jerk, then so be it.

[Damien the Leper]

But ya know what...I'm gonna take your side for once. My family doesn't deserve to have a filthy, God-hating, anti-Mormon, sin loving homo for a son. Tell me Selek, what does your definition of family mean for me?

I guess you can count the church's blessings because they have one less homo to worry about disrupting them.

Perhaps I don't deserve a family.

I don't know. I'm so broken hearted right now that everything means nothing. I don't know what to do. Sorry for my rant. I'm sorry for being rude. I'm just so Damn sorry for failing.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Valentinus

[mercyngrace]

Stargazer,

You are the only one saying anything about consequences or the lack of them. You injected that into the discussion. If you are unclear, try reading what is written without adding your own bias.

The law of chastity is entered into by covenant. I provided two references, the temple ceremony and Exodus 19. In D&C 42, it's reiterated as a part of the covenant of the latter-day church. What is your objection?

David pointed out that modern Jews also distinguish accountability relative to the covenant. This is clearly enunciated by the Lord when He indicates that where much is given, much is required.

Do you dispute that knowledge and accountability make a difference?

The only person to suggest an absence of consequence is YOU with you "scot free" remark. David referred to degrees of accountability, which is a scripturally sound principle. I agreed with him.

Can you hear me now?

Edited April 3, 2012 by mercyngrace

[selek1]

(To Selek) I'm not sure how you can, both, leave it as a matter of conscience and then firmly state a member should not attend (unless you are speaking only for yourself?).. Otherwise, it seems contradictory..

Hence the "my answer" qualifier.

I would not attend. I don't think others should.

Fortunately, I have not been called to a particular stewardship in which I can or must pass judgement on anothers decision to attend or not.

[mercyngrace]

I don't know. I'm so broken hearted right now that everything means nothing.

Wow Valentinus, I am so sorry for your loss and for the heartache with your family. That kind of rejection must be profoundly devastating.

Please keep your heart open to them. I'm sure they are hurting deeply also and there may yet come a moment of peace and reconciliation.

[bluebell]

I don't know. I'm so broken hearted right now that everything means nothing. I don't know what to do. Sorry for my rant. I'm sorry for being rude. I'm just so Damn sorry for failing.

I don't know what all you are going through righ tnow Valentinus, but please know that you are loved.

[altersteve]

But ya know what...I'm gonna take your side for once. My family doesn't deserve to have a filthy, God-hating, anti-Mormon, sin loving homo for a son. Tell me Selek, what does your definition of family mean for me?

I guess you can count the church's blessings because they have one less homo to worry about disrupting them.

Perhaps I don't deserve a family.

I don't know. I'm so broken hearted right now that everything means nothing. I don't know what to do. Sorry for my rant. I'm sorry for being rude. I'm just so Damn sorry for failing.

I'm sorry to hear about this, Valentinus. Whatever happens, just know that Heavenly Father loves you, and I sincerely hope you find peace very soon.

[Log]

I don't know. I'm so broken hearted right now that everything means nothing. I don't know what to do. Sorry for my rant. I'm sorry for being rude. I'm just so Damn sorry for failing.

Words won't help, bro. I feel for you.

[Evangeline]

Valentinus,

My heart totally goes out to you. This is my first post, but I've been reading the board for a while. I'm so sorry for your loss.

You must be feeling a tremendous amount of hurt.

I have been hurt by parents too. My mother boycotted my temple marriage and reception. Of course that was painful for me. She died a year later and our relationship never really healed completely while she was living. But I hope with all my heart and soul to be reunited with her someday. Time definitely can heal wounds.

May God give you peace.