Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[carbon dioxide]

Again, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  I don't agree and more members of the church are agreeing with me as time goes on.  It'll be interesting to watch what happens over the next 20 years or so within the church.  

The Church can become corrupted and start teaching false things.  It happened in the Book of Mormon and may happen here.  If the members and leaders are not watchful, Satan can place his influence in the Church.  We have been told that a great apostasy or a complete falling away will not happen again.  That does not mean that an apostasy that results in a significant portion will fall away could not occur.  As long as the members hold to the iron rod, they will not be influenced by what society says about gay marriage and be tempted to change their views on it.

Edited May 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[busybee]

Just received this video from a family member. This man is spot on:

 

https://www.facebook.com/george.escobar.712/videos/10152868989487194/

[SteveO]

I think a lot of the commentators here are like Alma the Younger's son Corianton...the justice of God troubled him to the point where he believed It unfair. Many think God unfair to give someone these feelings and then forbid them to act on them. Heterosexuals get to be married and live happily ever after but homosexuals are just doomed to a lonely life of misery. May I offer a few personal experiences to illustrate why I think we're giving the 1% far too much attention?

When the subject of the unfairness of the homosexual in the Mormon church arises, the first person I generally think of is my cousin who struggles with pedophillia...he's NEVER acted on those impulses, but he does have an exclusive attraction to very young children--just as real and just as powerful as same sex attraction. What's more, is the loathsome stigma of his condition by society. Just having the feelings attracts hate, anger, and ostracism...he owns his own feed n' seed store and keeps to himself, he still faithfully attends church.

I think of my aunt, who was in her younger days a beautiful woman (seriously) but never married. In her late 50's now, she confides to my mother of the bouts of terrible lonliness she sometimes feels. She faithfully attends church and is a temple worker.

I think of the same aunt's adopted daughter who was left abandoned on the streets of India. In her mid 30's, she has never been on a second date. How painful that must be to feel unwanted? To have to accept that she'll never have a companion in life? She's a physician's assistant--faithful in the church and a temple worker.

I think of my Bishop's 3 children--all with mental development problems--severe enough that they'll never be unable to care for themselves, but mild enough that they are aware of their condition. Their two daughters know they like boys, and their son knows he likes girls. They'd love to go on a date. To get asked out by their crushes. They'll never get to. How painful and tragically sad. How painful for their parents to see their only 3 children struggle with lonliness.

I think of many of the physically handicapped students I saw on campus while attending BYU. One girl in particular severely crippled from the waist down and deformities in her spine and neck, who will never in this life leave her wheelchair or have children--and unless a miracle, never be married.

The gay dilemma in the church is born of selfishness, pride, and a lack of faith. The gay couple in the original post are completely self centered. If they had an eternal view of things, and the love they say they do, they'd realize there are plenty of people in the world that struggle with truly heart wrenching circumstances. Trials either bring you closer to God or they destroy you. No, being gay in the church is not even the most difficult circumstance to find oneself in. I won't pretend that it's the easiest either. But I think we're losing the eternal perspective here. Do we suppose that a gay individual will rise in the resurrection changed and free of SSA? No, they won't. And if our desires, passions, and other "thorns" are not controlled and subdued in this life--They will rise with us again along with a perfect knowledge of our failure to do so...what kind of hell would that be? How much worse than not being able to marry in the church?

[Storm Rider]

We too often forget the eternal nature of truth; those inexplicable, at times, truths that are as true as they were 4,000 years ago as they are today.  I was thinking today of how the media has desensitized us to the point where that which was abhorrent only a few very short decades ago is now assumed to be "normal" and even healthy.  I cannot help but think that this was a plan of the evil one to lead greater numbers into the shackles of carnal desire and self-degradation.

 

Yet, many of us are simply stumped with how challenging it is for our brothers and sisters that are challenged with SSA.  We hurt for them and we want them to be happy...so much so that with the desensitization of the media we are willing to close our eyes to natural law, to all forms of healthy living, and to the blatant disregard of human biology, and want the world to stand still, to reverse itself and accept that two members of the same sex and marry and actually be happy...just not eternally.

 

I don't know the plan of our Father when it comes to those of us who suffer from SSA.  I pray for so many of my friends that I have met throughout my life that are such good people and yet have surrendered to their own humanity.  I cannot in any degree condemn them because I know my own humanity, but I know that in the eternal realms there is no place for this form of law-breaking.  It will not exist in any form or degree.  Those that suffer will have their burdens lifted regardless of what those burdens have been in this life.  Those who have persevered through their trials will be blest and made whole, without blemish or stain, and will remember no more their pain and the scars they suffered.  They have surrendered to God and they are his.

 

I have few answers, but I know that we must each hold to the iron rod and never let it go.  It is in this way that we return to our Father to rejoice in his presence and be healed of all our unrighteousness.  

[rodheadlee]

I guess but stealing, arson, drinking too much Coke from Mcdonalds on Dollar Drink days, etc isn't on the list for excommunication, it seems sexual stuff and murder is

Well try to get a TR if you are a smoker. I was born with addictive personality disorder. I came out of the chute addicted to nicotine. I'm not getting exed but I am a 60 year old AP holder with my progression stopped until i shake it. No Temple marriage for me even though I have been faithfully, monogamously married for 41 years. I can even give you scripture that says it's not what you put in your body that makes you a sinner but what comes out of your mouth. We are given weaknesses that we might be humble, it says that in the BoM ya know. Do I need to look it up for you?

[Duncan]

Well try to get a TR if you are a smoker. I was born with addictive personality disorder. I came out of the chute addicted to nicotine. I'm not getting exed but I am a 60 year old AP holder with my progression stopped until i shake it. No Temple marriage for me even though I have been faithfully, monogamously married for 41 years. I can even give you scripture that says it's not what you put in your body that makes you a sinner but what comes out of your mouth. We are given weaknesses that we might be humble, it says that in the BoM ya know. Do I need to look it up for you?

 

I was born ADDICTED to KFC, I know what you mean!!!!! I kid you not-i'm fine thank you!

[california boy]

I did not say YOU were evil. I do believe that actions can be evil.

Well actually you are calling me evil and just below a murderer and child molester. I am just putting the face on who you judge to be evil

Edited May 10, 2015 by california boy

[Storm Rider]

Well actually you are calling me evil and just below a murderer and child molester. I am just putting the face on who you judge to be evil

 

We are all evil in the same way that we are all carnal, human, and fall short of the glory of God.  Though I do think there are different degrees of unrighteousness or evilness, I also think that using those few degrees as ways of determining who is more evil is unhelpful.  It creates a separation that is without distinction.  We all fall short of the glory of God....full stop.  

 

Maintaining that understanding that we are each broken and in need of Christ allows us to look each other in the eye and know that we are the same.  It does not matter what our weaknesses are because Christ can heal us and make us whole.  That is the face to be put on it and to remember.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well actually you are calling me evil and just below a murderer and child molester. I am just putting the face on who you judge to be evil

Hang on, what did he actually say?

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.

No, he didn't say you were evil.

This is an excellent example of the kind of emotional blackmail Scott talks about. According to you, any time anyone declares any action to be wrong, if you are doing or have done that action, then they are making a personal attack on you.

CO2 takes aim at an inanimate target; you deliberately jump in front of the bullet and then start howling that he shot you.

Do you really think "It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!" like some kind of caricature of a teenage girl, or are you just being cold-bloodedly manipulative?

Is it your position that any discussion of LDS doctrine regarding homosexual activities should keep silent about whether such activities are sinful or not?

I was about to suggest that you had better look elsewhere to find such a discussion; but while the Church will never change its position on this matter, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the forum administration surrender to your ridiculous demand.

The precedents there are far more promising.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The Church can become corrupted and start teaching false things.  It happened in the Book of Mormon and may happen here.  If the members and leaders are not watchful, Satan can place his influence in the Church.  We have been told that a great apostasy or a complete falling away will not happen again.  That does not mean that an apostasy that results in a significant portion will fall away could not occur.  As long as the members hold to the iron rod, they will not be influenced by what society says about gay marriage and be tempted to change their views on it.

 

This "iron rod" seems to be more like Jell-o.

This "iron rod" doesn't seem capable of being any kind of final arbiter because of the many different factions or theories within the church (not even talking about Christianity generally) that all use this iron rod as their source.

We can't trust the iron rod to be clear.

We can't trust the prophets and apostles to be accurate.

We can't even trust our personal interpretations of spiritual experiences or feelings because we could be wrong just as easily as the prophets or other members.

In the absence of ANY way of really knowing, it seems that a reasonable approach to God is simply to seek to the best of our ability, live morally according to our best understanding, and be humble enough to recognize that we may not have any kind of clue whatsoever. This thread is making a strong case for agnosticism.

[Gray]

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.

 

Some hard liners in the church thought that, yes (or at least one that I can think of off the top of my head). But the position on blacks was generally more nuanced than that, as is the current position on gays. 

 

There is precious little in scripture, when considering historical context, to support the idea that homosexuality per se is sinful (and nothing at all in 3/4 of the quad). And there is nothing in any scripture on the topic of gay marriage.

 

The priesthood ban did have some scriptural support (the POGP), but those passages have been effectively disavowed. 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

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.

 

Some hard liners in the church thought that, yes (or at least one that I can think of off the top of my head). But the position on blacks was more nuanced than that, as is the current position on gays. 

 

There is precious little in scripture, when considering historical context, to support the idea that homosexuality per se is sinful (and nothing at all in 3/4 of the quad). And there is nothing in any scripture on the topic of gay marriage.

 

The priesthood ban did have some scriptural support (the POGP), but those passages have been effectively disavowed. 

[Gray]

Look in a mirror and repeat that.

 

I don't believe that about God, personally 

[Gray]

The gay dilemma in the church is born of selfishness, pride, and a lack of faith. 

 

If only people were not selfish, prideful or unfaithful they'd share your opinion. Is that right?

 

I'm not sure what's selfish about wanting to be happy. I want to be happy, and I live my life in such a way that I can be happy. Am I selfish? 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

I think a lot of the commentators here are like Alma the Younger's son Corianton...the justice of God troubled him to the point where he believed It unfair. Many think God unfair to give someone these feelings and then forbid them to act on them. Heterosexuals get to be married and live happily ever after but homosexuals are just doomed to a lonely life of misery. May I offer a few personal experiences to illustrate why I think we're giving the 1% far too much attention?

When the subject of the unfairness of the homosexual in the Mormon church arises, the first person I generally think of is my cousin who struggles with pedophillia...he's NEVER acted on those impulses, but he does have an exclusive attraction to very young children--just as real and just as powerful as same sex attraction. What's more, is the loathsome stigma of his condition by society. Just having the feelings attracts hate, anger, and ostracism...he owns his own feed n' seed store and keeps to himself, he still faithfully attends church.

I think of my aunt, who was in her younger days a beautiful woman (seriously) but never married. In her late 50's now, she confides to my mother of the bouts of terrible lonliness she sometimes feels. She faithfully attends church and is a temple worker.

I think of the same aunt's adopted daughter who was left abandoned on the streets of India. In her mid 30's, she has never been on a second date. How painful that must be to feel unwanted? To have to accept that she'll never have a companion in life? She's a physician's assistant--faithful in the church and a temple worker.

I think of my Bishop's 3 children--all with mental development problems--severe enough that they'll never be unable to care for themselves, but mild enough that they are aware of their condition. Their two daughters know they like boys, and their son knows he likes girls. They'd love to go on a date. To get asked out by their crushes. They'll never get to. How painful and tragically sad. How painful for their parents to see their only 3 children struggle with lonliness.

I think of many of the physically handicapped students I saw on campus while attending BYU. One girl in particular severely crippled from the waist down and deformities in her spine and neck, who will never in this life leave her wheelchair or have children--and unless a miracle, never be married.

The gay dilemma in the church is born of selfishness, pride, and a lack of faith. The gay couple in the original post are completely self centered. If they had an eternal view of things, and the love they say they do, they'd realize there are plenty of people in the world that struggle with truly heart wrenching circumstances. Trials either bring you closer to God or they destroy you. No, being gay in the church is not even the most difficult circumstance to find oneself in. I won't pretend that it's the easiest either. But I think we're losing the eternal perspective here. Do we suppose that a gay individual will rise in the resurrection changed and free of SSA? No, they won't. And if our desires, passions, and other "thorns" are not controlled and subdued in this life--They will rise with us again along with a perfect knowledge of our failure to do so...what kind of hell would that be? How much worse than not being able to marry in the church?

 

I wish you could see the difference between those examples and the couple in the OP, but it appears that you don't.

[ERayR]

If only people were not selfish, prideful or unfaithful they'd share your opinion. Is that right?

 

I'm not sure what's selfish about wanting to be happy. I want to be happy, and I live my life in such a way that I can be happy. Am I selfish? 

 

It depends.  Is your happiness causing someone else to be unhappy?

[ksfisher]

 

 

This "iron rod" seems to be more like Jell-o.

This "iron rod" doesn't seem capable of being any kind of final arbiter because of the many different factions or theories within the church (not even talking about Christianity generally) that all use this iron rod as their source.

We can't trust the iron rod to be clear.

We can't trust the prophets and apostles to be accurate.

We can't even trust our personal interpretations of spiritual experiences or feelings because we could be wrong just as easily as the prophets or other members.

In the absence of ANY way of really knowing, it seems that a reasonable approach to God is simply to seek to the best of our ability, live morally according to our best understanding, and be humble enough to recognize that we may not have any kind of clue whatsoever. This thread is making a strong case for agnosticism.

 

This post is very sad.

 

Thinking this way would mean that God has left us alone here.  Every man to himself to figure out what to do.  It really is a lone and dreary world is your description of things is accurate.

 

Contrast that with Joseph Smith's views as expressed in D&C 128

 

19 Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of ^agladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of ^btruth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great ^cjoy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the ^dfeet of those that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the ^edews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them!

 

 20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from ^aCumorah! ^bMoroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the ^cbook to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to ^dbear record of the book! The voice of ^eMichael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the ^fdevil when he appeared as an angel of ^glight! The voice of ^hPeter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the ⁱkeys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!

 

 21 And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old ^aFather Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of ^bGabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers ^cangels, from Michael or ^dAdam down to the present time, all declaring their ^edispensation, their rights, their ^fkeys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, ^gprecept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our ^hhope!

 

 22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. ^aCourage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into ^bsinging. Let the ^cdead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the ^dKing Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to ^eredeem them out of their ^fprison; for the prisoners shall go free.

 

 23 Let the ^amountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid ^brocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the ^cmorning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and ^dimmortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!

 

 24 Behold, the great ^aday of the Lord is at hand; and who can ^babide the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appeareth? For he is like a ^crefiner’s ^dfire, and like fuller’s soap; and he shall sit as a ^erefiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of ^fLevi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an ^goffering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the ^hrecords of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.

 

[bluebell]

I wish you could see the difference between those examples and the couple in the OP, but it appears that you don't.

 

Maybe if you pointed out the differences, that would help Steve to understand your point of view.

 

If Steve is saying that it seems obvious that God is o.k. with giving people inborn desires that He does not want them to act on, i'm not sure what the differences you are talking about are.

[Gray]

It depends.  Is your happiness causing someone else to be unhappy?

 

No. Is your happiness dependent upon someone doing something that makes them miserable?

 

I ask that anticipating a followup that gay people make their parents unhappy when they marry, but maybe that wasn't where you were going.

 

I feel like I've been a bit snarky this morning.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

Maybe if you pointed out the differences, that would help Steve to understand your point of view.

 

If Steve is saying that it seems obvious that God is o.k. with giving people inborn desires that He does not want them to act on, i'm not sure what the differences you are talking about are.

 

Steve only cited one person/example with an inborn desire the he could not act on (pedophilia) and acting on that desire creates a victim.

 

All of the others are prevented from marriage by external forces rather than church policy.  We'd rejoice if any of them had the opportunity to marry.

[bluebell]

Steve only cited one person/example with an inborn desire the he could not act on (pedophilia) and acting on that desire creates a victim.

 

All of the others are prevented from marriage by external forces rather than church policy.  We'd rejoice if any of them had the opportunity to marry.

 

Of course.

 

But isn't the underlining principle still the same-that just because something is an inborn desire doesn't mean God wants us to act on it?

[rockpond]

Of course.

 

But isn't the underlining principle still the same-that just because something is an inborn desire doesn't mean God wants us to act on it?

 

Definitely.  But because there is an inborn desire (pedophilia) that God doesn't want us to act on doesn't mean that God's will is identical for another inborn desire (homosexual orientation).  I think we ought to take it one step further and ask "why would/wouldn't God want us to act on that inborn desire?"

[bluebell]

Definitely.  But because there is an inborn desire (pedophilia) that God doesn't want us to act on doesn't mean that God's will is identical for another inborn desire (homosexual orientation).  I think we ought to take it one step further and ask "why would/wouldn't God want us to act on that inborn desire?"

 

I agree.

 

But it also doesn't mean that God's will isn't identical.  It's the idea that because people are born gay that means that God supports homosexual relationships that i struggle with.  I'm born with all sorts of things that I know God does not support.  

 

I guess i just really don't like the 'you were perfect just the way God made you' message that we get inundated with these days.  It's such baloney, regardless of whether we are gay or straight.  

[ALarson]

Definitely.  But because there is an inborn desire (pedophilia) that God doesn't want us to act on doesn't mean that God's will is identical for another inborn desire (homosexual orientation).  I think we ought to take it one step further and ask "why would/wouldn't God want us to act on that inborn desire?"

In the case of pedophilia, a child is being hurt.  It's a poor (and insulting) comparison to use against someone who is gay, IMO.

[bluebell]

In the case of pedophilia, a child is being hurt.  It's a poor (and insulting) comparison to use against someone who is gay, IMO.

 

I can't speak for the person who used the comparison in this thread, but i think that for most people, they use it only because it is one of those behaviors that people universally agree on as being bad.  

 

It's hard to say 'look, people are born with *this* and acting on it is a sin so just being born a certain way doesn't mean anything' when the people you are talking to don't think that particular behavior you chose to illustrate is a sin at all.  Thus, the tendency to go to the worst case scenario.  

 

When i have seen it used in the past it was not to suggest that pedophiles and homosexuals were committing equal sins or were 'the same'.  It's not a great comparison to use because it's so emotionally charged though.  To much baggage, to horrible...