Civil Unions

[WmLaw]

Is there any current LDS doctrine that would prohibit 2 men (joined together in a Civil Union) from holding temple recommends, participating in priesthood ordinances, taking the sacrament, etc?

[CV75]

Is there any current LDS doctrine that would prohibit 2 men (joined together in a Civil Union) from holding temple recommends, participating in priesthood ordinances, taking the sacrament, etc?

Exactly how are they joined?

 

...what I mean, is: are they prietshood-aged young men sharing common guardianship by two adults that have entered into a civil union?

 

...is it a traditional civil union, or how is the union structured?

Edited October 8, 2013 by CV75

[WmLaw]

Exactly how are they joined?

A government recognized union, affording them certain legal rights - similar to spousal rights afforded to couples in a legal marriage.

[rockpond]

Is there any current LDS doctrine that would prohibit 2 men (joined together in a Civil Union) from holding temple recommends, participating in priesthood ordinances, taking the sacrament, etc?

 

If they were celibate, then I don't think there is anything official.  But I would anticipate that local priesthood leadership would question their worthiness as a same gender married couple.

[rpn]

If you were talking about registration as a domestic partnership in a state where extended family or even friends who live together for the common good, though not necessarily as romantic partners, then perhaps if they are gay people sharing a similar relationship.   But civil unions are a whole different ballgame representing romantic relationships that indicate a gay lifestyle.   The church doesn't let people of the opposite sex who are not married be baptized and remain living together (and they don't ask how often or whether they are sexually intimate before invoking that rule, either).

[WmLaw]

If you were talking about registration as a domestic partnership in a state where extended family or even friends who live together for the common good, though not necessarily as romantic partners, then perhaps if they are gay people sharing a similar relationship.   But civil unions are a whole different ballgame representing romantic relationships that indicate a gay lifestyle.   The church doesn't let people of the opposite sex who are not married be baptized and remain living together (and they don't ask how often or whether they are sexually intimate before invoking that rule, either).

I suppose that approaches the heart of my question...  is it the living together part that would disqualify such a couple from full fellowship and participation?  under what circumstances is this determination made?  i.e. is it spelled out in a handbook somewhere, in those explicit terms?  so it is not a 'law of chastity' question?

[rockpond]

I suppose that approaches the heart of my question...  is it the living together part that would disqualify such a couple from full fellowship and participation?  under what circumstances is this determination made?  i.e. is it spelled out in a handbook somewhere, in those explicit terms?  so it is not a 'law of chastity' question?

 

The Disciplinary Council section (6.7) of Handbook 1 (2010 -- which is the latest edition) does not mention cohabitation as grounds for excommunication or disfellowship.  It does mention fornication, adultery, and "homosexual relations" among others.

[CV75]

A government recognized union, affording them certain legal rights - similar to spousal rights afforded to couples in a legal marriage.

Then I think it would fall under "cohabitation," which is a no-no, at the very least on the basis of appearances or provoking others to misjudge or get distracted away from having more essential conversations with chidlren or potential proselytes. By extension, just because it's legal doesn't make it moral. Plus, if the Church doesn't recognize it but the couple asserts it as if the Curch condones it, there is another kind of issue, so the Church would not want to facilitate any misunderstandings for the couple, the members, or the community.

[USU78]

Elder Oakes wasn't particularly ambiguous.

 

I don't understand the question.

[The Nehor]

So if I get a "civil union" with my best friend for tax benefits we're cool?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A government recognized union, affording them certain legal rights - similar to spousal rights afforded to couples in a legal marriage.

The Church is not gov't and is not there is valid all unions, partnerships, etc. The State can authorize the Church to perform marriages but the union of two males or females in the Temple would be the abandonment of 1/3 our belief systems thus giving us no more moral or Spiritual authority than the re-establishment of the principles upon which the "restoration" is based.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So if I get a "civil union" with my best friend for tax benefits we're cool?

Death and taxes...

[The Nehor]

The Church is not gov't and is not there is valid all unions, partnerships, etc. The State can authorize the Church to perform marriages but the union of two males or females in the Temple would be the abandonment of 1/3 our belief systems thus giving us no more moral or Spiritual authority than the re-establishment of the principles upon which the "restoration" is based.

 

1/3 of our belief systems? Curious how you arrived at such an exact fraction.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1/3 of our belief systems? Curious how you arrived at such an exact fraction.

No calculator in my hand, but the foundation of eternal families is like the three legged stool that could no longer stand...via 1/3.

[Brenda]

People with SSA are under the same laws of chastity as everyone else.  Any two unmarried people involved together in a sexual relationship, are violating a commandment.  

[Rivers]

People with SSA are under the same laws of chastity as everyone else. Any two unmarried people involved together in a sexual relationship, are violating a commandment.

And the church's definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman. Even if the state's definition of marriage is different.

[Rivers]

Duplicate

Edited October 9, 2013 by Rivers

[WmLaw]

And the church's definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman. Even if the state's definition of marriage is different.

So 2 men in a legal union, recognized or not recognized as a marriage by the church?  Therefore, subject to church discipline or not?

[WmLaw]

People with SSA are under the same laws of chastity as everyone else.  Any two unmarried people involved together in a sexual relationship, are violating a commandment.  

I will concede that point, of course.  In my scenario the couple is not breaking the law of chastity.

[Calm]

So 2 men in a legal union, recognized or not recognized as a marriage by the church?  Therefore, subject to church discipline or not?

Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

[WmLaw]

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

so based on your reference, how would you answer my questions in #19?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The Disciplinary Council section (6.7) of Handbook 1 (2010 -- which is the latest edition) does not mention cohabitation as grounds for excommunication or disfellowship.  It does mention fornication, adultery, and "homosexual relations" among others.

 Cohabitation would result in disfellowshipment, but not excommunication.  I saw that a number of times in my mission.

[rockpond]

 Cohabitation would result in disfellowshipment, but not excommunication.  I saw that a number of times in my mission.

 

I believe you but I imagine the assumption was fornication within that cohabitation.  Unless they were acting outside the scope of the handbook since it does not mention cohabitation.

[Damien the Leper]

People with SSA are under the same laws of chastity as everyone else.  Any two unmarried people involved together in a sexual relationship, are violating a commandment.  

 

However, the LDS church's perspective on Canon Law (or whatever they may call it) is not binding on the entire world. As one church of thousands, the LDS church's authority concerning the Law of God is very minimal as they are not the primary authority on the earth.

[wenglund]

However, the LDS church's perspective on Canon Law (or whatever they may call it) is not binding on the entire world. As one church of thousands, the LDS church's authority concerning the Law of God is very minimal as they are not the primary authority on the earth.

 

Said another way: "you're not the boss of me."

 

The same, in principle, applies to each and every belief system and believer or non-believer, and thus goes without saying. Everyone is entitled to their belief, and free to express their belief, and thus speak on God's behalf within the earthly marketplace of idea. And, ultimately, we will just have to wait until the final judgment to see which of the many belief systems and believers, if any, rightly spoke for God and correctly represented his Law. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-