Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[rockpond]

Whatever you're referring to here, was it issued with the imprimatur of the entire Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

 

Pardon my candor, but this strikes me as crap.

 

You can't say you believe in and live by it when you advocate against its content and when you disparage it as being "culturally influenced" and not of God.

 

CFR that I have advocated against the PotF.  

[Calm]

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

Just as many heterosexuals don't because they also obey the law of God when it comes to chastity or have been inspired to look for a partner among faithful Church members and haven't found one in this life.

 

Everyone is required to obey the laws of God that they have the opportunity to do so (they have both knowledge and ability to obey).  If they choose not to, they cannot access the blessings promised by God in conjunction with that obedience.

Edited May 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

no, I am saying if you are gay when you die why won't you be gay when in the next life? death won't change anything just as if you are unrepentant her,e like we learn from the Lazarus and the rich dude in Luke 16, death won't change anything

I see same-sex attraction as a malady, perhaps a congenital one like any birth defect. Ergo,  being "made whole" in the resurrection ("not so much as a hair of their heads shall be lost," according to the Book of Mormon) would entail the removal of this along with all other maladies.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Section 132:15-17 says that those who do not marry in this world, will not marry in the next.

 

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.

 

Currently the Church teaches that if we do everything we can but are not able to marry in this life, we won't be denied that in the next.  How do you, personally, reconcile these conflicting doctrines?

 

Easily. They do not conflict. It's only your ill-considered supposition that they do.

 

Marriage sealings are performed by proxy in the temples of the Church for individuals who did not have the opportunity to receive that ordinance in mortality. It is only reasonable to assume that, at some point, such vicarious ordinances will be performed for faithful individuals who, due to their same-sex attraction or for whatever reason, were incapable of entering into marriage (as defined by God) while in mortality.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR that I have advocated against the PotF.  

I said you've advocated against it's content. And you've done that by expressing repeatedly the vain hope and prediction that the Church one day will declare homosexual behavior not a sin and will solemnize it with marriage sealings in the temple.

[rockpond]

Easily. They do not conflict. It's only your ill-considered supposition that they do.

 

An ill-considered supposition?  It's there in plain English.

[rockpond]

I said you've advocated against it's content. And you've done that by expressing repeatedly the vain hope and prediction that the Church one day will declare homosexual behavior not a sin and will solemnize it with marriage sealings in the temple.

 

That does not conflict with the PotF which says nothing about homosexuality or gay marriage.  CFR that I have advocated against the PotF or please retract your statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

An ill-considered supposition?  It's there in plain English.

Did you read the part I added?

[Scott Lloyd]

That does not conflict with the PotF which says nothing about homosexuality or gay marriage.  CFR that I have advocated against the PotF or please retract your statement.

I retract nothing. I've explained my reasoning.

[rockpond]

I retract nothing. I've explained my reasoning.

 

I have not advocated against the PotF.  You haven't cited anything I've said to justify claiming that I have.

[rockpond]

Marriage sealings are performed by proxy in the temples of the Church for individuals who did not have the opportunity to receive that ordinance in mortality. It is only reasonable to assume that, at some point, such vicarious ordinances will be performed for faithful individuals who, due to their same-sex attraction or for whatever reason, were incapable of entering into marriage (as defined by God) while in mortality.

 

So the way you reconcile it is a hope that some future revelation will provide a means for individuals to be sealed in the temple who did not have the opportunity in this life?  Got it.

 

Same here.

[Scott Lloyd]

So the way you reconcile it is a hope that some future revelation will provide a means for individuals to be sealed in the temple who did not have the opportunity in this life?  Got it.

 

Same here.

It's not a hope. It's an assurance.

 

And I don't see that a future revelation is needed. Prophets repeatedly have made that assurance.

[Calm]

I did but I ask again if it didn't exist before and won't exist hereafter why are so against it? why not allow gay marriage? why are we excommunicating people then? If it doesn't matter in the eternities then why are we making such a big deal about it here? if you ex people you only further alienate people and are people condemned forever because they got exed from the Church?  "The same spirit that posseses"

 

Sin is that which separates us from God.  If we wish to be one with God, then we should surely seek his Will for us and strive to remove from our lives all that gets in the way of the relationships...including any sins which we are aware of.

 

If homosexual relationships (romantic) are a sin (something that creates barriers with the Spirit and God) whether or not they take place inside a legal marriage, then engaging in them, in fact committing ourselves to them on the level of marriage which is a relationship that is imo second only to our relationship to God is going to create spiritual conflict...we cannot serve two masters in the long run.

 

The bottomline question is if homosexual sexual behaviour is a sin or not even if legalized or in a committed relationship.  There are plenty of sins that are legal so just being legal doesn't tell us whether or not something will drive us down the wrong direction of seeking out God.  There are plenty of sins that can take place within a committed and loving relationship so having that doesn't preclude it from being a sin either.  One needs to seek the answer to that question oneself.  If one is a member of the LDS faith, it makes sense to use as a resource what leadership has taught about it and then take it to God for confirmation or not.

 

At this point since leadership is defining homosexual sexual behaviour in or out of legal marriage a sin, then it would be inappropriate for the Church to grant a dispensation to that sin just as it would be to grant dispensations and allow individuals who are continuing in adulterous or premarital sexual relationships**** to receive the appearance of the fullness of any blessings that are given by God to those obeying the law of Chastity even if in every other way they are trying to be obedient to God's laws and are loving and good people.

 

****I know that some local leaders ignore even grievous sexual sins, but this is not the general policy of the Church.  One should look to general policy to establish general policy, imo, not the less effective examples of leadership.

 

are people condemned forever because they got exed from the Church

 

Of course not.  Repentance can take place in this life or the next (otherwise we would all be in trouble, whether or not we are excommunicated) and so ordinances can be restored even if the person dies before that happens.

Edited May 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

 

Section 132:15-17 says that those who do not marry in this world, will not marry in the next.

 

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.

 

Currently the Church teaches that if we do everything we can but are not able to marry in this life, we won't be denied that in the next.  How do you, personally, reconcile these conflicting doctrines?

 

 

Here's what I understand: Everything will be sorted out during the Millennium.  President Brigham Young said:

 

“In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God [see Revelation 3:12], and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. … And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then [children] will be sealed to [parents] until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 333–34).

 

This passage does not specifically address the circumstances of a person who, not by choice, does not marry in this life or is otherwise deprived of a celestial marriage.  Nevertheless, everything will be sorted out.  

 

Just look at what the Lord has instituted for His children.  If a person must be baptized while in the flesh, and if many (most) of God's children have not received that ordinance, and if God has for that reason instituted proxy baptisms so that the mandate of baptism while on this earth is fulfilled, why can't God likewise make arrangements for His single children whereby the requirement for them to be married on the earth is also fulfilled?

 

I don't pretend to know or understand all of the logistics of how God will sort these things out.  Proxy baptism of an individual seems fairly simple compared to figuring out how a person who died without a sealed marriage or a spouse at all will meet the salvific requirement of being sealed in this world.  But I am confident that God has it sorted.  "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things."  (2 Nephi 2:24)

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ALarson]

I see same-sex attraction as a malady, perhaps a congenital one like any birth defect. Ergo,  being "made whole" in the resurrection ("not so much as a hair of their heads shall be lost," according to the Book of Mormon) would entail the removal of this along with all other maladies.

Wow.

 

Malady = "a disease or ailment"

Congenital = "(especially of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth" 

 

Is that really how you define someone who is gay?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Easily. They do not conflict. It's only your ill-considered supposition that they do.

 

Marriage sealings are performed by proxy in the temples of the Church for individuals who did not have the opportunity to receive that ordinance in mortality. It is only reasonable to assume that, at some point, such vicarious ordinances will be performed for faithful individuals who, due to their same-sex attraction or for whatever reason, were incapable of entering into marriage (as defined by God) while in mortality.

 

You're just making stuff up. So, during the millenium we'll be marrying people that were not previously married? Hmmm. Interesting. It's hardly the same concept as sealing a previously married couple. I'm assuming you can see that distinction, right? Is that your best reasoning?

Also, regarding SSA as a "malady". Thankfully this is more gospel according to Scott. SSA is not a sickness. CFR- show me where the church in the past 20 years has been as insensitive and wrong as you are now. Otherwise I'll just chalk it up to more SL ignorance.

[Storm Rider]

 

 

You're just making stuff up. So, during the millenium we'll be marrying people that were not previously married? Hmmm. Interesting. It's hardly the same concept as sealing a previously married couple. I'm assuming you can see that distinction, right? Is that your best reasoning?

Also, regarding SSA as a "malady". Thankfully this is more gospel according to Scott. SSA is not a sickness. CFR- show me where the church in the past 20 years has been as insensitive and wrong as you are now. Otherwise I'll just chalk it up to more SL ignorance.

 

Happy, are you then saying that SSA is an eternal position for individuals?  Do you have anything to support that specific belief?  

 

It has always been my understanding of the atonement that will be perfected through Christ Jesus.  All our sins forgiven and his holiness, his righteousness, becomes our own.  How would SSA escape that while all other sins are washed away?

[rockpond]

It's not a hope. It's an assurance.

 

And I don't see that a future revelation is needed. Prophets repeatedly have made that assurance.

 

We don't currently have an ordinance for sealing someone who was not married in this life.  We can't seal someone to an unknown spouse.

 

And if you consider it an assurance it's because a modern day prophets have made the promise in contradiction to Section 132, which I believe you consider to be a revelation of God, right?

[rockpond]

 

Here's what I understand: Everything will be sorted out during the Millennium.  President Brigham Young said:

 

“In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God [see Revelation 3:12], and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. … And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then [children] will be sealed to [parents] until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 333–34).

 

This passage does not specifically address the circumstances of a person who, not by choice, does not marry in this life or is otherwise deprived of a celestial marriage.  Nevertheless, everything will be sorted out.  

 

Just look at what the Lord has instituted for His children.  If a person must be baptized while in the flesh, and if many (most) of God's children have not received that ordinance, and if God has for that reason instituted proxy baptisms so that the mandate of baptism while on this earth is fulfilled, why can't God likewise make arrangements for His single children whereby the requirement for them to be married on the earth is also fulfilled?

 

I don't pretend to know or understand all of the logistics of how God will sort these things out.  Proxy baptism of an individual seems fairly simple compared to figuring out how a person who died without a sealed marriage or a spouse at all will meet the salvific requirement of being sealed in this world.  But I am confident that God has it sorted.  "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things."  (2 Nephi 2:24)

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

I also agree that all will be sorted out.  And I agree that there is more revelation to come to help us through that process.  That's how I reconcile some of the contradictions that I see in our doctrine but the nature of my hope is very offensive to some here.

[Calm]

no, I am saying if you are gay when you die why won't you be gay when in the next life? death won't change anything just as if you are unrepentant her,e like we learn from the Lazarus and the rich dude in Luke 16, death won't change anything

There are plenty of personal attributes that aren't necessarily bad that will, imo, still keep us from becoming one with God if we don't purge them from ourselves through repentance and acceptance of the Atonement.  The promise of the Atonement is that Christ can change whatever of the natural man that stands in our way of oneness with God and not only remove the sinful nature, but change that aspect into something good.

 

My dad was a great provider and generous with his time and resources to help others and establishing that as a habit very early in his life probably even helped others survive where they wouldn't have if he had not had that aspect of personality, but he carried that quality in many ways to an extreme, to the point where it interfered with his ability to understand and love others for who they are and can become and thus being able to provide not only for their survival, but growth.  I have no doubt that now that he has moved on to the next stage it is still going to take time for that spirit which possessed him at his death that knew better than anyone else what was good for people (and was often right) to be altered into one of humility and relying on the Lord to learn to see others and himself as they truly are and to respond to them in that way instead of his old habits.

 

I think that there are going to be many such qualities of our personality that are so important to us in mortality that we are going to find out will be barriers to progression instead of pillars of our true selves and I think given how engrained they are, that it will take time for us to let go of them, to put aside what are earthly treasures to embrace the full promises of God.  Those who in the end refuse to do so will only deprive themselves of possibilities.  

 

The Church as a community intent on helping people seek out God needs to remove as much as possible the chance of creating circumstances that strengthen the natural man instead of opening ourselves up to the Spirit.  There is a lot of stuff in the Church that imo gets in the way and it will take a lot to remove it from the culture, but that is no reason to just accept additional situations that are known to be problematic (or so leadership believes and teaches) because it makes it easier to live some of the other commandments of God.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Happy, are you then saying that SSA is an eternal position for individuals?  Do you have anything to support that specific belief?  

 

It has always been my understanding of the atonement that will be perfected through Christ Jesus.  All our sins forgiven and his holiness, his righteousness, becomes our own.  How would SSA escape that while all other sins are washed away?

 

We don't know if SSA is eternal or not. That has been my argument through this thread. We don't know. We need revelation on this or those with SSA are left hanging, wondering if they have a "malady" (as Scott called it) that will be cured or if they will have SSA for eternity but be denied to act on it in any way. That sounds pretty hellish to me. But we don't know. Until we know I think it's a heartless mistake to condemn those with SSA to eternal aloneness.

[Duncan]

There are plenty of personal attributes that aren't necessarily bad that will, imo, still keep us from becoming one with God if we don't purge them from ourselves through repentance and acceptance of the Atonement.  The promise of the Atonement is that Christ can change whatever of the natural man that stands in our way of oneness with God and not only remove the sinful nature, but change that aspect into something good.

 

My dad was a great provider and generous with his time and resources to help others and establishing that as a habit very early in his life probably even helped others survive where they wouldn't have if he had not had that aspect of personality, but he carried that quality in many ways to an extreme, to the point where it interfered with his ability to understand and love others for who they are and can become and thus being able to provide not only for their survival, but growth.  I have no doubt that now that he has moved on to the next stage it is still going to take time for that spirit which possessed him at his death that knew better than anyone else what was good for people (and was often right) to be altered into one of humility and relying on the Lord to learn to see others and himself as they truly are and to respond to them in that way instead of his old habits.

 

I think that there are going to be many such qualities of our personality that are so important to us in mortality that we are going to find out will be barriers to progression instead of pillars of our true selves and I think given how engrained they are, that it will take time for us to let go of them, to put aside what are earthly treasures to embrace the full promises of God.  Those who in the end refuse to do so will only deprive themselves of possibilities.  

 

The Church as a community intent on helping people seek out God needs to remove as much as possible the chance of creating circumstances that strengthen the natural man instead of opening ourselves up to the Spirit.  There is a lot of stuff in the Church that imo gets in the way and it will take a lot to remove it from the culture, but that is no reason to just accept additional situations that are known to be problematic (or so leadership believes and teaches) because it makes it easier to live some of the other commandments of God.

 

this is why you and Bluebell are some of my fave posters!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

You're just making stuff up. So, during the millenium we'll be marrying people that were not previously married? Hmmm. Interesting. It's hardly the same concept as sealing a previously married couple. I'm assuming you can see that distinction, right? Is that your best reasoning?

 

See Smac's post on this.

 

Also, regarding SSA as a "malady". Thankfully this is more gospel according to Scott. SSA is not a sickness. CFR- show me where the church in the past 20 years has been as insensitive and wrong as you are now. Otherwise I'll just chalk it up to more SL ignorance.

 

I don't cop to being "insensitive and wrong."  Your leveling the accusation doesn't make it so.

 

But apparently you either missed or are choosing to ignore the quote I provided from Elder Lance B. Wickman in the Q and A setting with Church Public Affairs, the one that also involved Elder Dallin H. Oaks, the one that is still up on LDS Newsroom section of lds.org. What I've said is consistent with the statement he made.

 

And I'm not going to concede that homosexual behavior is normal or wholesome, if that's what you're demanding. Get used to it.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here, for your edification, is the quote I provided before from Elder Wickman, with a bit that Elder Oaks added that I didn't quote before:

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

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.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

And here's another statement, showing that Elder Wickman regards it as an "affliction," as do I:

 

ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’

Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.

 

(Emphasis mine.)

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

We don't know if SSA is eternal or not. That has been my argument through this thread. We don't know. We need revelation on this or those with SSA are left hanging, wondering if they have a "malady" (as Scott called it) that will be cured or if they will have SSA for eternity but be denied to act on it in any way. That sounds pretty hellish to me. But we don't know. Until we know I think it's a heartless mistake to condemn those with SSA to eternal aloneness.

Still determined, I see, to ignore the content I quoted from lds.org.

[JulieM]

I have to believe the leaders wouldn't support anyone saying their stance regarding gays is that they suffer with a "congenital malady". Where have you read that Scott? Or is that just your opinion?