Bob Oliverio Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?
volgadon Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?It is none of the forum's business. 3
tyler90az Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?I would like to think the people at the head of the church are smarter then to do something as stupid as that.Side: It is bad enough that for my first TR interview I was asked if I supported abortion. I guess that was somehow lumped in with the question about supporting splinter groups. Luckily I do not support abortions of any kind...
Storm Rider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 The Church will always be the foundation that will speak for righteousness and holiness. The political views of its members, which side they may choose to vote, are personal and have very little to do with the stand of the Church. Individual members may participate in political discussions and choose the side that they feel best represents their personal views and opinions. These political positions have nothing to do with personal worthiness, imho. For example, if a LDS supports gay unions their position is acceptable and they may still hold a temple recommend; I see no conflict. Governments should not attempt to participate in the religious, a marriage is a religious union, a rite, ordinance, or sacrament. If a LDS wants to support government actions to recognize a couple, regardless of gender, as a family unit, I do not see a conflict with LDS doctrine. I think my position is in the minority among LDS, but I also think that the rights of married couples has become so intertwined within so many different areas, insurance, retirements funds, Social Security, hospital care, etc., that I do not see how we, as a nation, can deny the eventuality of allowing all to receive those same rights.As an aside, if a bishop asks you if you support abortion or even about your marital life (sex life), then you tell him that is none of his business. Occasionally, bishops become a little over-zealous and go beyond what is appropriate. These things used to happen more often than they should have, but now I don't hear about their occurrence very often. 2
CASteinman Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Governments should not attempt to participate in the religious, a marriage is a religious union, a rite, ordinance, or sacrament. This has not been true for centuries. It is a religious rite that has been assumed by the state. And with good cause in America. Marriage and Family is the basic fundamental unit of society. The State has in intrinsic interest in this fundamental unit, especially as it relates to procreation and the raising up of future generations of citizens. In addition the State also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of legal and contractual matters that may arise in courts.Thus the "State" (I mean government -- it could be Germany, China or California) has a legitimate interest in the matter. Thus, there are laws that:Restrict marriage to people of a certain maturity or age such as 18 years old.Restrict marriage to avoid plural marriage or bigamyRestrict marriage to prevent or avoid transmission of disease and/or inherited defectsRestrict marriage to avoid incest as a standardRestrict marriage to human beingsRestrict marriage to willing, competent partiesRestrict marriage to people of opposite genderWhile a person may hold a stand on these issues either way, to object that the State has no place in these matters displays one of the problems with the philosophy of secular Libertarianism: A slide to anarchy. (The other big problem is that it is amoral and is contrary to the advice and teachings of the Book of Mormon prophets in particular). Edited July 21, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 It is none of the forum's business.Aren't there a lot of things that are none of the forum's business, but which are subjects of discussion?
Storm Rider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 This has not been true for centuries. It is a religious rite that has been assumed by the state. And with good cause in America. Marriage and Family is the basic fundamental unit of society. The State has in intrinsic interest in this fundamental unit, especially as it relates to procreation and the raising up of future generations of citizens. In addition the State also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of legal and contractual matters that may arise in courts.Thus the "State" (I mean government -- it could be Germany, China or California) has a legitimate interest in the matter. Thus, there are laws that:Restrict marriage to people of a certain maturity or age such as 18 years old.Restrict marriage to avoid plural marriage or bigamyRestrict marriage to prevent or avoid transmission of disease and/or inherited defectsRestrict marriage to avoid incest as a standardRestrict marriage to human beingsRestrict marriage to willing, competent partiesRestrict marriage to people of opposite genderWhile a person may hold a stand on these issues either way, to object that the State has no place in these matters displays one of the problems with the philosophy of secular Libertarianism: A slide to anarchy. (The other big problem is that it is amoral and is contrary to the advice and teachings of the Book of Mormon prophets in particular).The reasons above have everything to do with procreation and very little to do with civil unions. You also have not addressed the number of rights that are used in our society for married couples that are denied people who are not married; regardless of gender, just those who are not married. Governments need to get out of the marriage business and stick with civil unions. In doing so, none of your reasons above would be lost (except for the last one), and all peole would enjoy the rights currently afforded married couples. Marriage would then properly be restricted to religion. Our teachings and our moral standings are valid to our religion. What I cannot get around is how simple rights of insurance, retirement funds, social security, etc. are all denied people who live together or are in civil unions. I reject this as unfair and pernicious; I see no reason for it. There are a lot of ways to skin this cat (no offense to cat lovers) and civil unions for all is the easy path that make sense to me. It maintains the sanctity of marriage and allows all to enjoy rights that were previously denied without just cause.
Damien the Leper Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?Despite my support of the church leadership and their stance on the matter I will admit that it is none of the church leaderships nor my local ecclesiastical leaders business concerning political matters.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Despite my support of the church leadership and their stance on the matter I will admit that it is none of the church leaderships nor my local ecclesiastical leaders business concerning political matters.When politics overlaps into issues of morality it becomes the business of church leadership. local ecclesiastical leaders and indeed all church members.
KevinG Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 My Bishop does not enter the voting booth with me and my local state representative is not invited to my Temple recommend interview. 2
CV75 Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Where is the "CHURCH"Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members? I haven't seen much vote-related activity recently, but I think the Church has made its point on gay marriage, more so through the "Proclamation" than through Prop 8.What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations? I think it would be wonderful if every adult member had one.If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? They may in some areas, not in others; not sure how this would play out in their recommend interview. I personally don't think excommunication is relevant in this case.Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not? Perhaos superfically, but it depends on how much light and knowledge the person has and what sin is actually committed in the name of support.Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum? Why would you ask that? Edited July 21, 2012 by CV75
BCSpace Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?It is standing firm though in some cases it is allowing the wheat to grow up with the tares. For lack of a better description, it is allowing the broader use of language to describe one's belief vis a vis other principles (such as agency) but is still not allowing the practice, both homosexual and support for that lifestyle or the transmission of false beliefs.What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?To support gay marriage and hold a TR at the same time means one did not accurately and honestly answer this question:"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? "It also puts one into conflict with Romans 1:32.Now there are many things that would put one into conflict with that TR question. But the Church is not interested in punishing minor unbelief or wavering testimonies nor should it be. The Church is concerned in this area (as the scriptures teach) about that which influences the membership to openly defy the leadership or to descend into immorality, both of which are affected by this issue.If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet?Absolutely not.If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Yes and maybe. In actual practice, it's a don't ask don't tell type of situation. I am in a position to sign TRs. I would never sign a TR for anyone who I know publically expresses opposition to the Church's position on this matter or admits to doing so without much further questioning and the reception of satisfactory answers (such as "It was long ago and I am no longer in opposition."). I do not know anyone else in a similar position who would do otherwise and I know many.Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?It is a violation of those, yes.Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?Quite likely. This forum has a history of not being able to tolerate discussion about the Gospel in practice. But since you asked, I am happy to give answer. Edited July 21, 2012 by BCSpace
CASteinman Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 The reasons above have everything to do with procreation and very little to do with civil unions.As I said. The state has in interest in fostering the creation, health and upbringing of the next generation. You also have not addressed the number of rights that are used in our society for married couples that are denied people who are not married; regardless of gender, just those who are not married. I did, indirectly. The State has an interest in subsidizing the creation, health and upbringing the next generation.Governments need to get out of the marriage business and stick with civil unions. I will support your view as long as civil unions are for people of opposite gender.
rpn Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Are you asking whether members ought to be lobbying leaders to change the church policies? And exactly which of the revealed laws of God would you have leaders change? Are you suggesting that if members tell the leaders they are leaving the church because they support gay marriage, then the leaders will be a revelation to change the church position in order to preserve the church? That is what some believe happened in polygamy and blacks holding the priesthood, but faithful members are not among them.Except for an occasional overzealous leader, nothing will happen TO those who support gay marriage BY those leaders. But something will happen to the members, as they will not have submitted their will to their Heavenly Fathers, and in the process they will become part of the body politic which may harm society because practiced homosexuality will be accepted civilly by more people, accepted by them, and those who follow the Lord's guidance on the point will become more persecuted. This issue is no different from others faithful members have had to deal with. We do not have to agree with the counsel of our God, but we reject it at our not insignificant spiritual peril. It is bad enough that for my first TR interview I was asked if I supported abortion.Leaders are supposed to ask the specific TR questions: I wouldn't have answered a question about my personal belief about abortion in a TR interview. Questions about supporting gay marriage are equally inappropriate in a TR interview.To support gay marriage and hold a TR at the same time means one did not accurately and honestly answer this question:"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? "I do not agree with BC's interpretation at all. If you become a member of a group and help fund anti-LDS teaching, then you might be getting there. But we are free to vote and to believe how we please without running afoul of this TR question. Edited July 21, 2012 by rpn
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?If a member "openly" supports state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet? If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated? Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?It would depend if you were try to convert others to your cause. Also I think it is important to note this is God's Church, non (thankfully) man's.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 If practicing homosexuals receive special dispensation to partake of church ordinances I want special dispensation for my brand of immorality.
tyler90az Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 I am not sold on gay marriage one way or the other. The only thing is I have never heard a good argument or even a reasonable argument against gay marriage. Could somebody enlighten me? I am all for getting a firm position on this issue if you would do that for me.
volgadon Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Aren't there a lot of things that are none of the forum's business, but which are subjects of discussion?The status of someone'stemple recommend should not be the subject of discussion here. 2
daz2 Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 I have been in the position of signing recommends many times. As far as the question about affiliations or sympathies, I have never gone beyond the person's "yes" or "no." I have never asked anyone about any kind of political issue even if the Church has deemed in moral, like back in the days of the Church's opposition to the ERA or support of Prop 8. 1
spartacus Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) I would like to think the people at the head of the church are smarter then to do something as stupid as that.Side: It is bad enough that for my first TR interview I was asked if I supported abortion. I guess that was somehow lumped in with the question about supporting splinter groups. Luckily I do not support abortions of any kind...You might want to watch that last statement of yours tyler90az, its not in-line with LDS leadership: AbortionHuman life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.Additional InformationIn today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRDAlso, on the OP, considering this "encourage an abortion in any way" then it would seem like there would be precedent for supporters or "encouragers" of same-sex marriage laws to be denied TR, or at least "church discipline". Edited July 22, 2012 by spartacus
tyler90az Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 You might want to watch that last statement of yours tyler90az, its not in-line with LDS leadership: AbortionHuman life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.Additional InformationIn today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRDAlso, on the OP, considering this "encourage an abortion in any way" then it would seem like there would be precedent for supporters or "encouragers" of same-sex marriage laws to be denied TR, or at least "church discipline".That does not change my view in the slightest.This is a sensitive topic for some people and could hurt them deeply so I will keep it brief. The only exception to abortion I have is if the baby is not healthy and will kill the mother. If the baby is perfectly healthy, but will kill the mother, I do not support abortion. Other then that, I do not support abortion under any circumstances, even rape or incest. If you support abortion under those circumstances then it makes your position for not supporting abortion under other circumstances look weak. That is especially the case if you are using the religious position. What I do support is adoption under any circumstance.
Calm Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 If you support abortion under those circumstances then it makes your position for not supporting abortion under other circumstances look weak.If that is the only reason you support abortion under those circumstances---appearances to others----that troubles me and I hope you rethink your position. 2
tyler90az Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 If that is the only reason you support abortion under those circumstances---appearances to others----that troubles me and I hope you rethink your position.Not at all
CASteinman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) The status of someone'stemple recommend should not be the subject of discussion here.I did not think that was proposed. I thought the issue was something more like "The conditions upon which temple recommends may be issued or denied". Wouldn't that be a reasonable subject of discussion? Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 I am not sold on gay marriage one way or the other. The only thing is I have never heard a good argument or even a reasonable argument against gay marriage. Could somebody enlighten me? I am all for getting a firm position on this issue if you would do that for me.From a gospel perspective the argument is this: Homosexual acts are not approved by God. Marriage is ordained of God as being between men and women.You can get into deeper longer explanations but that's pretty much the bottom line, from the perspective of the Gospel.
Recommended Posts