Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I've understood Elder Lance B. Wickman to have expressed the position of the Church when he said this:

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

For what it's worth, this is what I wholeheartedly believe.

Thanks for sharing that, Scott. I appreciate his perspective but was Elder Wickman speaking as spokesperson for the church? Is he a prophet, seer, or revelator? Does he reference a revelation to know such things? When was this quote given? I ask because he was released (Emeritus) in 2010. The church has made some changes on this issue since 2010. I'm just curious about the context.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Bonnie L. Oscarson in the recent general conference called it a "revelatory document."

 

It does not contain new revelation, but it does amount to revelation from God. And the issuance of the proclamation, and the concomitant emphasis of its content, is inspired.

 

This is how cultural issues or opinions of leaders seep in to become pseudo-doctrine.

The Proclamation was never claimed to be a "revelation" but now that it's been around for 20 years and Bonnie called it "revelatory" we must then presume it is a revelation as if written by God's own finger. I don't think so.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

This is how cultural issues or opinions of leaders seep in to become pseudo-doctrine.

The Proclamation was never claimed to be a "revelation" but now that it's been around for 20 years and Bonnie called it "revelatory" we must then presume it is a revelation as if written by God's own finger. I don't think so.

You are disparaging the words of Sister Oscarson because she is not a man? That strikes me as sexist.

 

And please have some respect for her calling. Do you ordinarily refer to the apostles and members of the Seventy by their first name?

[ERayR]

 

It's always frustrating when people are incapable of even recognizing the struggle some people face. All the church is saying to gay people now is that they are not acceptable and that their families are counterfeit. That who they are at their core isn't good enough. If they are to accept the church's teachings they are required to accept a LOT more uncertainty than others of us face because we don't know anything about how it will work. OR the prophet could reveal something that would be useful.

If prophets of old could receive revelation about where a nephite alter once stood, I think it's reasonable to hope they would seek and receive revelation about the eternal nature of the gay population of God's children.

 

It is frustrating to me when people seem incapable of recognizing that all people face struggles of one kind or another.  It is also frustrating to me when some think that because their struggles are with homo-sexual or gender identity that they deserve special dispensation and exemptions from the commandments relating to sexual issues. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Thanks for sharing that, Scott. I appreciate his perspective but was Elder Wickman speaking as spokesperson for the church? Is he a prophet, seer, or revelator? Does he reference a revelation to know such things? When was this quote given? I ask because he was released (Emeritus) in 2010. The church has made some changes on this issue since 2010. I'm just curious about the context.

I gave you the link; you can see the context for yourself. It was a Q and A situation with Elder Wickman and Elder Oaks. It is still up on the "Newsroom" section of the official Church website. Does this not reflect the official position of the Church? Prove it.

 

And when a member of the Seventy receives emeritus status, it is not the same as a release. At the time emeritus status was introduced in the Church, it was explained that it meant the leader was being honorably relieved, not released, from his calling.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On what basis?  Just life.

 

Other than procreation, what can heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot?

Just life? That is pretty big. And you diminish it with your comments. That is one of the main purposes of this life is to have kids per LDS doctrine. The whole "multiple and replenish the Earth"? Did you forget that. Also you cheat kids out of a mother and a father when you do the gay thing. 2 dads or 2 moms cannot give the same things as a mom and dad.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is frustrating to me when people seem incapable of recognizing that all people face struggles of one kind or another.  It is also frustrating to me when some think that because their struggles are with homo-sexual or gender identity that they deserve special dispensation and exemptions from the commandments relating to sexual issues. 

Amen. This is all a case in special pleading. They should be exempt because they are gay. That is essentially the argument. Sorry, that just does not work.

[ERayR]

I've understood Elder Lance B. Wickman to have expressed the position of the Church when he said this:

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

For what it's worth, this is what I wholeheartedly believe.

 

I can go with this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes it does. The very first sentence in it says: "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children".

Tss and my self always disagree on all sorts of issues, even heatedly. But on this issue I agree with him.

[rockpond]

That is one of the main purposes of this life is to have kids per LDS doctrine. The whole "multiple and replenish the Earth"?

 

But if the alternative is celibacy then the gay individual isn't having kids either way.

[Scott Lloyd]

And you understand her to be saying that it was revealed from God?  On what basis would Sister Oscarson make such a claim?

I understand her to say it is revelatory because the Lord revealed to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that it needed to be issued under their imprimatur.

 

And I see her as making "such a claim" because it is self-evident. Was she out of line? Prove it. Show me where she has been slapped down for it or her words have been disavowed.

 

 

And if you are right that it was a revelation from God, you should ask the Brethen who signed it to stop taking credit as its authors.

 

It is their role and responsibility to declare the word of God and to stand behind their declaration as having been inspired of God. It is entirely appropriate that it be issued over their individual signatures, and the fact that it was so issued indicates its stature and importance.

[Gray]

Amen. This is all a case in special pleading. They should be exempt because they are gay. That is essentially the argument. Sorry, that just does not work.

 

Straight people are already exempt from the restrictions placed on gay people because they are straight. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, like I said, the church has not claimed that the POTF represents a revelation from God. Bonnie Oscarson may feel differently. 

A member of the First Presidency was present when she said it. So far as I know, her words remain in the official record of the conference proceedings.

 

Was she off base in making that declaration? Prove it.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

It is frustrating to me when people seem incapable of recognizing that all people face struggles of one kind or another.  It is also frustrating to me when some think that because their struggles are with homo-sexual or gender identity that they deserve special dispensation and exemptions from the commandments relating to sexual issues. 

 

I hear you but what I am saying is why can't we take a middle road and say what the church has been more or less for awhile now, and that is gays and straights live the same law of chastity, both repent if they mess up, both faith and be baptized and straight folk can get married and why can't we allow gay members to get married? That way they'll want to be in the Church, no exemptions and there is a pace for them, they too have spiritual gifts and experiences that we all need! As it is now, they come out of the closet and quit the Church and to me that's just so sad and wrong! I want them in the Church! One aspect of them shouldn't disqualify someone from the Church, just like everybody else

[rockpond]

I understand her to say it is revelatory because the Lord revealed to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that it needed to be issued under their imprimatur.

 

And I see her as making "such a claim" because it is self-evident. Was she out of line? Prove it. Show me where she has been slapped down for it or her words have been disavowed.

 

 

It is their role and responsibility to declare the word of God and to stand behind their declaration as having been inspired of God. It is entirely appropriate that it be issued over their individual signatures, and the fact that it was so issued indicates its stature and importance.

 

I wouldn't expect her to be "slapped down" for using the word revelatory.  To some it is revelatory.  But that is not the same thing as a revelation from God.

 

 "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..."

 

That strikes me as a pretty clear declaration of authorship by the 15 men who signed it.  Not God.

 

ETA:  I'm not sure how we got back on this since the thread is about SSM and the PotF does not speak to SSM.

Edited May 12, 2015 by rockpond

[ERayR]

Straight people are already exempt from the restrictions placed on gay people because they are straight. 

 

No it is because they are keeping the law of chastity.

[Scott Lloyd]

But if the alternative is celibacy then the gay individual isn't having kids either way.

As with any faithful Latter-day Saint who never has a viable opportunity to marry and have children in mortality, that blessing ultimately will not be denied to an individual with same-sex attraction who strives to keep the commandments in every way he can.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've understood Elder Lance B. Wickman to have expressed the position of the Church when he said this:

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

For what it's worth, this is what I wholeheartedly believe.

Thanks for sharing the whole article is worth the read.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

are they still gay in the next life? why be gay here then? would they be fixed?

Calm down. Did you read Scott's post?

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

 

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But if the alternative is celibacy then the gay individual isn't having kids either way.

In this life. But as was pointed out, there are heterosexuals, of no fault if their own, that don't have the opportunity to marry in this life and have kids as well.

 

So what point does that serve in what you brought up?

 

That they have a challenge but for some reason they should be allowed to act on their feelings and get a free pass?

 

Why should they be allowed to sin?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

Like any faithful Latter-day Saint who never has a viable opportunity to marry and have children in mortality, that blessing ultimately will not be denied to an individual with same-sex attraction who strives to keep the commandments in every way he can.

 

I'm curious, Scott, how do you personally reconcile that current teaching of the Church with Section 132:  

 

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

[ERayR]

I hear you but what I am saying is why can't we take a middle road and say what the church has been more or less for awhile now, and that is gays and straights live the same law of chastity, both repent if they mess up, both faith and be baptized and straight folk can get married and why can't we allow gay members to get married? That way they'll want to be in the Church, no exemptions and there is a pace for them, they too have spiritual gifts and experiences that we all need! As it is now, they come out of the closet and quit the Church and to me that's just so sad and wrong! I want them in the Church! One aspect of them shouldn't disqualify someone from the Church, just like everybody else

 

I don't know why God organized it the way he did but he has always repudiated homo-sexual actions even to the extent of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.    

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Straight people are already exempt from the restrictions placed on gay people because they are straight. 

No they are not. What a totally ignorant thing to say.

[rockpond]

In this life. But as was pointed out, there are heterosexuals, of no fault if their own, that don't have the opportunity to marry in this life and have kids as well.

 

I'll pose the same question to you that I just asked Scott:  how do you personally reconcile that current teaching of the Church with Section 132:  

 

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I'm curious, Scott, how do you personally reconcile that current teaching of the Church with Section 132:  

 

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 

Maybe you can point out what needs to be reconciled. The prophets have specifically stated that those that are faithful that did not have the chance to get married will be made whole.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram