Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Daniel2]

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

If we actually apply this scripture in real life, we can see the real world results and see which position is of God and which is of man.

Well said. Others believe same-sex relationships are sinful and cannot lead to true joy.

My testimony leads me to know a different reality, one in which I have finally discovered inner peace and true joy in an authentic, reciprocal, loving relarionship with my husband. I have tested the word, planted the seed in my heart, tasted the fruit, my understanding has been enlarged, and know for myself.

This reality has been affirmed repeatedly through my own life experiences.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

As far as her gender is concerned, I would be happy if she were given authority to help lead the church. But that's not my decision to make. 

Yes, that was a cheap shot.  You never mentioned her gender or even inferred that it entered into your opinion on this matter.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Personally, I have wondered about (and even hoped for) the Proclamation being canonized. However, I wonder if the Lord, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, is holding off on that because He understands that there are many members of the Church who are presently kicking against the pricks, who are rebelling against plain and simple truths found in the Restored Gospel, and are instead in the thrall of the world  

-Smac

 

This reasoning is used often but I don't understand it. The members just aren't ready for it. It's the reason given for the delay in ending discrimination against blacks holding the priesthood and attending the temple. It's used to explain why the WoW was phased in over time and why polygamy had to remain such a secret amongst the elite members. It's very generous thinking to suppose God is giving commandments but not expecting us to keep them until we become comfortable with them.

I'll also note that 20 years ago, when the POTF was new, it would have been much more widely accepted as authoritative than it is now, particularly regarding the assumptions about gay marriage. Time seems to be working against the members in this case, not for them, so the argument that God is allowing us to get used to the idea doesn't seem to hold up.

[Maestrophil]

It all hinges on how marriage is defined for the law of chastity, right?  I think that's why the Brethren have made repeated statements about the legal definition of marriage not changing our definition of marriage within the Church.  They are saying:  living the law of chastity requires that you use man-woman marriage as the only valid definition of marriage, what the state defines as legal is not relevant to the law of chastity.

 

I keep hearing that they are saying that God requires that man-woman marriage must exist in order to justify sexual relations.  ANYTHING else is violating His law of Chastity. Under this definition, gay people can never engage in non-sinful sexual relations. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Yes, that was a cheap shot.  You never mentioned her gender or even inferred that it entered into your opinion on this matter.

 

It's funny to see Scott trying to claim the progressive ground by tossing insults and accusations of sexism.

[rockpond]

I keep hearing that they are saying that God requires that man-woman marriage must exist in order to justify sexual relations.  ANYTHING else is violating His law of Chastity. Under this definition, gay people can never engage in non-sinful sexual relations. 

 

Correct, under that definition, gay people can never engage in non-sinful sexual relations.  And a gay couple who is legally married can (and sometimes will) be disciplined for it thus showing that the Church is serious about that definition.

[smac97]

One that follows the 1st, 14th Amendments, and the spirit of Loving v Virginia. That allows consenting adults to form legally binding relationships including that of marriage as they choose.

 

Have you read Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004)?  It addresses Loving v. Virginia (your references to the 1st and 14th Amendments is too vague to respond to), as follows:

 

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any Arizona court has explicitly recognized that the fundamental right to marry includes the freedom to choose a same-sex spouse. Petitioners argue, however, that the Court in Lawrence implicitly recognized such a right. We therefore turn to that case before considering whethe such a right otherwise exists.

...

First, as the State points out, elsewhere in its decision the [u.S. Supreme] Court explicitly stated that the case before it "[did] not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." . . . It therefore follows that the Court did not intend by its comments to address same-sex marriages.

...

Third, and finally, because other language in Lawrence indicates that the Court did not consider sexual conduct between same-sex partners a fundamental right, it would be illogical to interpret the quoted language as recognizing a fundamental right to enter a same-sex marriage. Specifically, the Court applied without explanation the rational basis test, rather than the strict scrutiny review utilized when fundamental rights are impinged, to hold the Texas statute unconstitutional. . . If the Court did not view such an intimate expression of the bond securing a homosexual relationship to be a fundamental right, we must reject any notion that the Court intended to confer such status on the right to secure state-sanctioned recognition of such a union.

...

For the foregoing reasons, we reject Petitioners' contention that Lawrence establishes entry in same-sex marriages as a fundamental right. We therefore examine the fundamental right to marry to determine whether it encompasses the right to marry someone of the same gender.

...

Although marriage traditionally has involved opposite-sex partners, Petitioners contend that this tradition, like others before it, must crumble under our evolving understanding of liberty.

...

To support their contention, Petitioners first rely on Loving v. Virginia, wherein the Court held that a Virginia law forbidding interracial marriages deprived the couple in that case of their fundamental right to marry.

...

Petitioners assert that because the "freedom of choice to marry" recognized in Loving is unrestricted, it encompasses the right to marry anyone, including a same-sex partner, even in the face of traditional, societal disapproval of such unions. We disagree. Implicit in Loving and predecessor opinions is the notion that marriage, often linked to procreation, is a union forged between one man and one woman. 388 U.S. at 12 ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.") (citation omitted); Baehr, 74 Haw. at 552-55, 852 P.2d at 55-56 (discussing Supreme Court opinions construing fundamental right to marry and concluding right "presently contemplates unions between men and women"). Thus, while Loving expanded the traditional scope of the fundamental right to marry by granting interracial couples unrestricted access to the state-sanctioned marriage institution, that decision was anchored to the concept of marriage as a union involving persons of the opposite sex. In contrast, recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of "marriage." We therefore conclude that Loving does not mandate a conclusion that the fundamental right to choose one's spouse necessarily includes the choice to enter a same-sex marriage.

...

Petitioners finally argue that the choice to enter a same-sex marriage must be granted fundamental-right status in view of society's evolving acceptance of same-sex unions.

...

We are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition to "exercise the utmost care" in conferring fundamental-right status on a newly asserted interest lest we transform the liberty protected by due process into judicial policy preferences rather than principles born of public debate and legislative action. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720. In exercising that care, we reject Petitioners' argument.

...

Although same-sex relationships are more open and have garnered greater societal acceptance in recent years, same-sex marriages are neither deeply rooted in the legal and social history of our Nation or state nor are they implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Despite changing attitudes about both homosexuality and the attributes of "family," no state in this Nation has enacted legislation allowing same-sex marriages. To the contrary, Congress and the majority of states, including Arizona, have enacted legislation in recent years explicitly limiting marriage to opposite-sex unions.

...

This court does not dispute that a homosexual person's choice of life partner is an intimate and important decision. However, not all important decisions sounding in personal autonomy are protected fundamental rights . . . The history of the law's treatment of marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman, together with recent, explicit reaffirmations of that view, lead invariably to the conclusion that the right to enter a same-sex marriage is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by due process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

Correct, under that definition, gay people can never engage in non-sinful sexual relations.  And a gay couple who is legally married can (and sometimes will) be disciplined for it thus showing that the Church is serious about that definition.

 

Agreed!  :-)

[smac97]

Correct, under that definition, gay people can never engage in non-sinful sexual relations.  And a gay couple who is legally married can (and sometimes will) be disciplined for it thus showing that the Church is serious about that definition.

 

I think the Church would likewise discipline church members who engage in polygamy, even where polygamy is legal (parts of the Middle East and Africa).

 

Do you think otherwise?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

I think the Church would likewise discipline church members who engage in polygamy, even where polygamy is legal (parts of the Middle East and Africa).

 

I agree.

[smac97]

I agree.

Do you think the Church is acting appropriately when it disciplines church members for entering into polygamy?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

Well said. Others believe same-sex relationships are sinful and cannot lead to true joy.

My testimony leads me to know a different reality, one in which I have finally discovered inner peace and true joy in an authentic, reciprocal, loving relarionship with my husband. I have tested the word, planted the seed in my heart, tasted the fruit, my understanding has been enlarged, and know for myself.

This reality has been affirmed repeatedly through my own life experiences.

 

Yes! And this is the only kind of revelation that counts - the revelation that is born of experience.  

 

In my experience it's very difficult for anyone to remain opposed to gay marriage once they actually get to know gay couples. An enlargement of heart happens when you get to know the "other" and find out that he is like you. 

[rockpond]

Do you think the Church is acting appropriately when it disciplines church members for entering into polygamy?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes.

[smac97]

Yes.

What about disciplinary action taken against church members who enter into a same-sex marriage? Is it appropriate for the Church to do that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

What about disciplinary action taken against church members who enter into a same-sex marriage? Is it appropriate for the Church to do that?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes.

[smac97]

This reasoning is used often but I don't understand it. The members just aren't ready for it.

Some members aren't ready for it. That's what I'm speculating about (and speculation is all it is).

It's the reason given for the delay in ending discrimination against blacks holding the priesthood and attending the temple.

I'm not sure that's accurate (or if it is, it is quite incomplete). And in any event, speculation is not falsifiable.

 

It's used to explain why the WoW was phased in over time and why polygamy had to remain such a secret amongst the elite members.

Sorta.

 

It's very generous thinking to suppose God is giving commandments but not expecting us to keep them until we become comfortable with them.

I've never said that. And in any event, there are no "commandments" in the Proclamation that I can see. And to the extent the Church is under a mandate to discipline members for violations of the Law of Chastity, it is already doing so.

 

I'll also note that 20 years ago, when the POTF was new, it would have been much more widely accepted as authoritative than it is now,

I agree. That sort of cuts the feet out from those who challenge its authoritativeness now, when there is so much social pressure from the denizens of the Great and Spacious Building to get with their program.

 

particularly regarding the assumptions about gay marriage.

What "assumptions" are you referencing here?

 

Time seems to be working against the members in this case, not for them, so the argument that God is allowing us to get used to the idea doesn't seem to hold up.

I don't understand your reasoning. The Proclamation allowed the Church to establish strong barriers against the tidal wave of social pressure regarding endorsement/celebration of homosexual activity and marriage. Those barriers were set up when the Proclamation was published in 1995, well before the tidal wave reached shore.

The scriptures are replete with exhortations that "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Ezekiel 3:27, Luke 8:8, Mark 4:9, Mark 4:23, Mark 7:16, Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:9, Matthew 13:43, Luke 14:35, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:11, Revelation 2:17, Revelation 2:29, Revelation 3:6, Revelation 3:13, Revelation 3:22, Revelation 13:9). When I was younger I thought these passages were something of a tautology. However, when the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve issue a Proclamation to the World, and when people who profess to be members of the Church look for every which-a-way to ignore or rebut or disregard that Proclamation, then I see why these passages are necessary reminders. Let us hear.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The orthodox position on the matter leads to misery and sometimes death. It creates broken people. Gay marriage on the other hand seems to be as beneficial to gay people as it is to straight people. 

You are only saying that from your limited view and biased view. Form some of the points I have read on various threads full on acceptance has not lead to a reduction of the "misery and sometimes death" that you speak of. And no "Gay marriage on the other hand seems to be as beneficial to gay people as it is to straight people." It would seem that quite the opposite happens we can look to the studies in places like Sweden that have had gay marriage for years to see that claim is not true.

 

And what about the kids?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes! And this is the only kind of revelation that counts - the revelation that is born of experience.  

 

This is a glib but pernicious falsehood.

 

Much revelation does come from experience, but there is also a great deal that comes when the Almighty chooses to bestow it upon His sons and daughters, whether or not they are experiencing anything pertaining to it at the time.

 

And a lot of revelation is given to prophets and apostles and written down for the benefit of those who have "ears to hear" (to apply a phrase I just saw in a post from Smac and which I used earlier today or yesterday).

 

To ignore or marginalize any revelation, "borne of experience" or not, by declaring that it "doesn't count", is foolish and potentially harmful to oneself and others.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

You are only saying that from your limited view and biased view.

 

Granted, but I'm going off of observation and evidence, not speculation. 

 

Form some of the points I have read on various threads full on acceptance has not lead to a reduction of the "misery and sometimes death" that you speak of.

 

What makes you think it hasn't? 

 

And no "Gay marriage on the other hand seems to be as beneficial to gay people as it is to straight people." It would seem that quite the opposite happens we can look to the studies in places like Sweden that have had gay marriage for years to see that claim is not true.

 

What studies specifically?

 

And what about the kids?

 

They're far too young to get married

 

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/29/usu-study-examines-psychological-impact-of-being-lgbt-and-mormon/%C2'>

[Gray]

This is a glib but pernicious falsehood.

 

Much revelation does come from experience, but there is also a great deal that comes when the Almighty chooses to bestow it upon His sons and daughters, whether or not they are experiencing anything pertaining to it at the time.

 

And a lot of revelation is given to prophets and apostles and written down for the benefit of those who have "ears to hear" (to apply a phrase I just saw in a post from Smac and which I used earlier today or yesterday).

 

To ignore or marginalize any revelation, "borne of experience" or not, by declaring that it "doesn't count", is foolish and potentially harmful to oneself and others.

 

There is are no shortcuts to understanding. God does not provide test answers to students who have not studied the material. God does not magically rescue people from floods who refuse the help of human rescuers. Similarly, an understanding of the true nature of gay marriage cannot be had by prayer alone.

 

This is of course ignoring the elephant in the room, which is no one in any position of authority in the LDS church has claimed any revelation on the topic of gay marriage.

 

Do you believe in personal revelation? 

[carbon dioxide]

Yes! And this is the only kind of revelation that counts - the revelation that is born of experience.  

 

In my experience it's very difficult for anyone to remain opposed to gay marriage once they actually get to know gay couples. An enlargement of heart happens when you get to know the "other" and find out that he is like you. 

I know a gay couple who are married.  They are related to my adopted son.  We get along very well and all that but it has not changed my opinion on gay marriage by even 1%.  I know people who have had premarital sex.  They are nice people but my opinion on shacking up before marriage has not changed.  My wife sister is one of these people.  I don't give her any flack but what she is doing is 100% wrong. 

 

It does not matter what our hearts say in the end. Christ will judge us by his standards and not what our standards are  The Church must direct people towards passing the judgement bar of God.  To do anything less the Church might as well not exist.

Edited May 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

What about disciplinary action taken against church members who enter into a same-sex marriage? Is it appropriate for the Church to do that?

Thanks,

-Smac

What about action taken against church members having premarital sex?  There is no difference between that and a gay couple having sex regardless of whether the government issues them a license to do so.

[Daniel2]

Have you read Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004)? It addresses Loving v. Virginia (your references to the 1st and 14th Amendments is too vague to respond to), as follows:

Thanks,

-Smac

As you likely know, several Federal and State Courts and several Courts of Appeals have cited the precident set in Loving as a reason to grant same-sex couples the equal right to marry, Smac, so there is ample actual legal precident that disagrees with your narrow, procreation-based interpretation of why Loving found a right to marriage.

Guess we'll know by June whether or not marriage rights for same sex couples is analogous to Loving.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

Looks like Pahoran's reverting to his true form, degrading insults and all.

Really?

What did you find to be degrading or insulting?

I realise that all of you would like to marginalise and exclude every position that opposes "same sex marriage" -- or anything else you might take it into your heads to demand (and we all know, despite repeated denials, that "same sex temple marriage" is on the agenda somewhere) -- but why, exactly, is a visceral response not a valid one?

Would you prefer that those who disagree with you (to the extent that anyone is or should ever be permitted to disagree with you) dissemble upon such matters?

Do you prefer not to know how others really feel?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

My testimony leads me to know a different reality, one in which I have finally discovered inner peace and true joy in an authentic, reciprocal, loving relarionship with my husband.

Ah. So you're the wife, then.

Got it.