Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Duncan]

What exactly do they need to be updated to.  They are pretty clear to me. 

 

 

wouldn't it be nice to have something on gay marriage?? what to do now that it's legal

[JulieM]

I see a lot of hate in this thread. I honestly feel that if someone was investigating the church and read many of these comments against gay marriage, they'd run away fast and not ever want to join. Comparing those who enter into gay marriage to the money changers? Seriously? Can you explain why you feel they're the same?

[rongo]

I agree.  I was just sitting here thinking as I read through these last few pages, I wonder how Christ would treat this man (or others who have entered into marriages with the person they love)? Would He excommunicate them?  Would He kick them out of His church?  I really doubt it.

 

(I know I'll get that He'd love the sinner and hate the sin, but would he ask them to leave?)

What would you say to a homosexual man who believes in the Restoration, believes in the Atonement, believes that President Monson is a prophet today, only is attracted to men, is practicing homosexuality currently, wants to stop and live Church standards, is wracked with guilt at his sins, and believes that he can only be fully forgiven through priesthood channels?

 

Would you say that excommunication is wrong in his case? Would you at least admit that formal Church discipline can sometimes be a good thing for homosexuals in the Church?

 

I've had this happen.

[rongo]

 Comparing those who enter into gay marriage to the money changers? Seriously? Can you explain why you feel they're the same?

You're carrying the comparison too far. It wasn't money changers = gay marriage proponents, it was comparing the Jesus who whipped people and overturned tables, etc. with the Jesus that many critics romanticize: one who never judged anyone for any reason, tolerated everything in the name of non-judgmentalism, etc. 

 

When the hand-wringing over how "hateful" traditional Mormons are ensues, the hand-wringers conveniently ignore *that* Jesus.

Edited May 8, 2015 by rongo

[ksfisher]

I see a lot of hate in this thread. I honestly feel that if someone was investigating the church and read many of these comments against gay marriage, they'd run away fast and not ever want to join. Comparing those who enter into gay marriage to the money changers? Seriously? Can you explain why you feel they're the same?

I believe you're reading things into what is being said that aren't there. I didn't say that gays are money changers. But in response to the idea that Christ would accept all into his church, regardless of their state of worthiness, I pointed out aninstance where Christ felt people's behavior was not appropriate for his temple. (And a tree story as well)

[carbon dioxide]

I see a lot of hate in this thread. I honestly feel that if someone was investigating the church and read many of these comments against gay marriage, they'd run away fast and not ever want to join. Comparing those who enter into gay marriage to the money changers? Seriously? Can you explain why you feel they're the same?

I personally would have less problem with money changers in the temple than gay marriages in the temple.

[carbon dioxide]

wouldn't it be nice to have something on gay marriage?? what to do now that it's legal

I think we all should know what to do. 

 

1.  Gay marriage is legal according the the government.

 

2.  Gay marriage is a sin towards the laws of God

 

3.  Treat gays who have a gay marriage with respect.  Love them

 

4.  Members of the Church who are gay but living the law of chastity are full members of the Church.  Meaning they can't participate in gay relationships and be married.

 

5.  Those that choose to get a gay married are subject to church discipline

 

6.  Gay investigators who are married to another gay person need to get a divorce before baptism. 

[Calm]

Gay investigators who are married to another gay person need to get a divorce before baptism. 

 

In the case where there may be children involved, I wonder if the same policy will apply as does to plural marriage in countries where it is legal and divorce may leave the wives and children in financially and social difficulties, so they tell the family to remain intact and the husband to support the commitment he has made rather than being baptized.

[Duncan]

I think we all should know what to do. 

 

1.  Gay marriage is legal according the the government.

 

2.  Gay marriage is a sin towards the laws of God

 

3.  Treat gays who have a gay marriage with respect.  Love them

 

4.  Members of the Church who are gay but living the law of chastity are full members of the Church.  Meaning they can't participate in gay relationships and be married.

 

5.  Those that choose to get a gay married are subject to church discipline

 

6.  Gay investigators who are married to another gay person need to get a divorce before baptism. 

 

OR!!!!! the same rule , we are told by the brethren, applies to gays and straights, be celibate until married. 

 

Christ said to the Nephites, 3 Nephi 18:25

 

"And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commandedthat ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation."

[carbon dioxide]

OR!!!!! the same rule , we are told by the brethren, applies to gays and straights, be celibate until married. 

 

Christ said to the Nephites, 3 Nephi 18:25

 

"And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commandedthat ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation."

Except with gays, even if they get married it does not matter.  Marriage to God is man and woman.  Male-female relationships.  Keep in mind that in case of polygamy, the wives are married to the husbands.  The wives are not married to each other.  In other words, in polygamy, the wives can't engage in acts among themselves. 

 

Christ also said in 3 Nephi 11 that we should not have contention over the points of his doctrine.  We should know his doctrine and not get creative in change it fit some other subgroup.  I don't see how one can read the scriptures, teachings of the prophets up to this point and even remotely conclude that gay marriage is even a option.  It is so far out of bounds that one really has to try hard to make it fit.

Edited May 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

california boy, on 08 May 2015 - 3:59 PM, said:

I believe what your views on this subject is - is determined by what you think of Christ and the gospel he taught

 

 

I agree.  I was just sitting here thinking as I read through these last few pages, I wonder how Christ would treat this man (or others who have entered into marriages with the person they love)? Would He excommunicate them?  Would He kick them out of His church?  I really doubt it.

 

(I know I'll get that He'd love the sinner and hate the sin, but would he ask them to leave?)

 

You assume that you know what Christ would do/say. Your assumption is that he would think like you.  This assumption is not clearly evident.

[ERayR]

wouldn't it be nice to have something on gay marriage?? what to do now that it's legal

 

Duncan it is already there.  If you won't accept what is already there what makes you would accept anything new.

[Gray]

Marriage to God is man and woman.  Male-female relationships.

 

Lucky for you, God's thoughts on the matter happen to exactly match yours.

[Gray]

Either. What do you think he would say?

 

I think he'd say that gay marriage is wrong, but he would decline to claim a revelation on the matter

[carbon dioxide]

I suspect at some point a majority of saints would have felt indignant about the idea of allowing blacks into the temple. Things change. 

Was there ever a time in the LDS Church that blacks were considered wicked and in violation against the laws of God for their simple existence?  I see little connection between blacks going to the temple and declaring something that always been considered wickedness and then declaring "Sorry, God decided that its ok with it now after thousands of years.  God has meet enough gay people to now know that its the concept of gay marriage is fabulous."  I think for those who think that gay marriage will one day be acceptable in the Church based on some other things the Church has done in the past that are not really related will be waiting a very long time and will be disappointed.

Edited May 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

Lucky for you, God's thoughts on the matter happen to exactly match yours.

 

Look in a mirror and repeat that.

[Sleeper Cell]

 He hasn't asked. If he did ask I'd need to know what it's about - I'd rather not waste his time or mine. We did share the podium on Easter - I liked his talk and he liked mine, they were complimentary. I avoid him in the halls because the guy just doesn't know when to shut up. It does make it easier that I'm only there one or two Sundays a month.

 

The last bishop didn't ask much, either, which was fine with me. We only met that once at my house, he understands I never really liked him much. He was apparently told by the SP to leave me alone, but I didn't know that until after the robe, shoes, ring, fatted calf, etc. He's certainly much more like the other son.

 

Oh, I take that back, we did meet once more - in a temple recommend interview where my words were generally confined to "yes" and "no." I had a much more in depth conversation with the SP counselor who did the second part - but we are old friends and I was once his counselor when he was bishop.

The parable doesn’t say anything about how the prodigal son reacted to his brother’s attitude.  But given his deep contrition for his own transgressions, I would like to think that he made every effort to overlook those of his brother.

[Duncan]

Duncan it is already there.  If you won't accept what is already there what makes you would accept anything new.

 

this whole post is about a SS couple getting married and being exed which the CHI doesn't say will happen, their leaders made that connection, I say it's wrong. I am awaiting the Church to update the CHI on this and similar issues. On another note I emailed the CHQ about something that I thought was dumb and I am awaiting back to hear their response

[carbon dioxide]

this whole post is about a SS couple getting married and being exed which the CHI doesn't say will happen, their leaders made that connection, I say it's wrong. I am awaiting the Church to update the CHI on this and similar issues. On another note I emailed the CHQ about something that I thought was dumb and I am awaiting back to hear their response

If you need an update, maybe you will get lucky.  I am not sure the Church updated its policy on alcohol when prohibition was eliminated in the 1930s.  I don't think it really needed to.  What the government makes legal really should not have any bearing on Church policy since it is not part of the government.

[Duncan]

If you need an update, maybe you will get lucky.  I am not sure the Church updated its policy on alcohol when prohibition was eliminated in the 1930s.  I don't think it really needed to.  What the government makes legal really should not have any bearing on Church policy since it is not part of the government.

 

render unto Caesar?

[california boy]

I believe you're reading things into what is being said that aren't there. I didn't say that gays are money changers. But in response to the idea that Christ would accept all into his church, regardless of their state of worthiness, I pointed out aninstance where Christ felt people's behavior was not appropriate for his temple. (And a tree story as well)

 

Is all you have pointed out is that you have a different view of who Christ was and what His gospel was about.  Julie is only pointing out that she has a different view of who Christ was.

 

Both of you only confirm my statement. " I believe what your views on this subject is - is determined by what you think of Christ and the gospel he taught"

[california boy]

 

california boy, on 08 May 2015 - 3:59 PM, said:

 

 

 

You assume that you know what Christ would do/say. Your assumption is that he would think like you.  This assumption is not clearly evident.

 

 

How did you get that out of what I said?  

 

Is all I said was 'I believe what your views on this subject is - is determined by what you think of Christ and the gospel he taught"  I think ti might be safe to say that my view of Christ and the gospel he taught might be much different than somone elses.  Perhaps different than what you think the message and teachings of Christ were about.  Don't you think you would agree with that statement?

[california boy]

I personally would have less problem with money changers in the temple than gay marriages in the temple.

Of course you would.  You view the words of Christ as saying that there is nothing worse than gay marriage.

Edited May 9, 2015 by california boy

[carbon dioxide]

Of course you would.  You view the words of Christ as saying that there is nothing worse than gay marriage.

When did I say that?  Child abuse and murder I would say are worse.  Gay marriage is not the worst thing in the world BUT just because there are worse things does not make it good.

Edited May 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Stargazer]

In all honesty, I'm really confused that anyone would be surprised that the LDS church is excommunicating same-sex couples who marry. Given the church's current doctrine / policy, that is an obvious no-brainer, and it shouldn't shock anyone.

I fully agree with everything Mola says above, especially in light of the new study that recently came out of Utah State University that gays' and lesbians' mental health improves dramatically once they leave the LDS Church.

Reinforcing the division between happily married gays and the Mormon church is probably a win-win for both.

 

Given that Handbook 1 does not say the slightest thing about SSM (I have access to it and I checked), if some members have been excommunicated after entering into a gay marriage it is NOT because the SSM, but because of the homosexual relations -- entering gay marriage would seem to be prima facie evidence of having homosexual relations.  But even then, the handbook lists homosexual relations as one of a number of transgressions that it say MAY be grounds for a disciplinary council.  And as some have already said in this thread, having a DC does not automatically result in church discipline. 

 

I don't think that most bishops or stake presidents are monitoring marriage license records to check to see if any members of their units are getting married to a same-sex partner.  If they are, then I think they should be doing something more productive with their time.  Now, if a bishop or stake president (defined as "prominent positions") were to enter into gay marriage (i.e. a serious transgression because of "homosexual relations"), then the handbook says a DC must be held.  But even there the handbook does not require excommunication.