Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

God has commanded all of us to show compassion to one another.  I don't think compassion has been the issue here.  But we have never been commanded to accept sin as something acceptable.

 

As a church we are so focused on REJECTING the sin that we lose sight of accepting the individual. Seeking out inactive gay members to excommunicate them hardly feels like we are accepting them as individuals.

[Boanerges]

Duncan, I love the compassion with which you are treating this topic. We need to find a way to show gays they are accepted in the church but that will only happen when they REALLY are accepted. They sure aren't now. This board illustrates that very well.

 I agree with you and Duncan.That's my issue with gay marriage and the church. The official stance of the church is that people who are gay were born that way - it is not a choice. I was born heterosexual, I did not choose. The church says it's OK for me to be born heterosexual and for someone else to born homosexual, we can both be members, we can go to the temple and serve missions. Yet, I can marry and fulfill my sexuality, the gay person cannot. Before any hardliners shoot back about the church's position on marriage being between a man and a woman and gay sex be sinful, I am very familiar with those church teachings/policies. I simply don't understand how the church can say it's OK for me to marry and have sex (having has no choice in my sexuality) while my friend cannot (having had no choice in his sexuality). It does not seem just to me. Again, no need to repeat policy, I get it, and repeating it doesn't change my mind - explaining it in terms other than it's a sin would help.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know soft pedaling is, even though I ride bikes and I love soft ice cream, so I don't get that connection  . You can't have a policy without a principle. But what is the principle here? the law of chastity, no sexual relations outside of marriage but for gay people it doesn't seem to apply. Why can't they like the rest of us have sex in marriage? Why is is sinful for one couple and not another?

That darn auto correct. Special pleading.  Oh well. It is not just " no sexual relations outside of marriage". That is one part of the law.

 

Another aspect is acting on feelings that involve ssa, that is a sin and that breaks the law of chastity. I also answered your question of "Why is is sinful for one couple and not another". Just asking it over and over does not make your point. You are just ignoring responses to your question.

 

Why can't I steel? because it is not your property. Yeah but why can't I do it? What is the reason?

 

That is essentially what you are doing.

 

gay marriage is a rather recent anomaly. It did not even exist until a few years ago. 

[Duncan]

Because the principle is that homosexual sex is sinful regardless if it is outside or within marriage.

 

that's the unpopped kernel in the bowl of popcorn here, why that when all around you is the seemingly good, normal stuff? it doesn't work!! what's enough for you and me isn't for other. It's easy for us to say that homosexuality is a sin but we don't live with the consequences. I have no idea what it's like to be gay and Mormon with no plan for ever changing or being accepted or having  a loving relationship, we all want to know why!!!!! why for some and not others

[Boanerges]

The covenant  made at baptism is renewed when we take the sacrament.  We then have the same opportunity to forsake our sins and re-enter that covenant relationship with the Savior. 

 

Again, that's why they're inactive. What if the shoe were on the other foot and it were gay marriage that was sanctioned and not heterosexual marriage? Would you not marry or ever have sex?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because the principle is that homosexual sex is sinful regardless if it is outside or within marriage.

Its not just the sex. The very relation or "marriage" is an abomination. The very relationship is a sin.

 

It is not a relationship the Lord has defined as acceptable. The same could be said incestuous relationships. Not that people are arguing that people should enter into them. But those relationships are forbidden too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 The official stance of the church is that people who are gay were born that way - it is not a choice.

No it isn't. CFR.

[JulieM]

 But why issue a statement that it's ok to support gay marriage as a member, and then we see Bishops seeking out gay, inactive members who have married so they can hold a court for them?

 

It's like the leaders are saying that it's ok to support it, but don't do it.

I agree with this and it's confusing.

[Gray]

That darn auto correct. Special pleading.  Oh well. It is not just " no sexual relations outside of marriage". That is one part of the law.

 

 

That is how the law of chastity is defined in the temple. No more, no less

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

they why make homosexuality or allow it and then possibly condemn people for it? Life isn't so black and white!!

Then why make stealing or allow it and then possibly condemn people for it?

Take your favorite sin and insert it were homosexuality is. See how easy it is to rationalize any sin?

 

I assume when you say homosexuality you are referring to those that act on the impulses.

[thesometimesaint]

they why make homosexuality or allow it and then possibly condemn people for it? Life isn't so black and white!!

 

I'm certainly not condemning them. However Every/Any organization has the right to determine it own rules for membership. If you want to belong to any organization it is probably a good idea to follow the rules of that organization. IE; If I don't want to belong to the Shiners, a nice organization that does good things. There is nothing that says I have to or that they have to admit me. Let alone if I don't want to follow their rules, that they have to keep me.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Its not just the sex. The very relation or "marriage" is an abomination. The very relationship is a sin.

 

It is not a relationship the Lord has defined as acceptable. The same could be said incestuous relationships. Not that people are arguing that people should enter into them. But those relationships are forbidden too.

 

So are gay people who hold hands or kiss breaking the law of chastity? In other words, are there 2 separate laws of chastity? 1 ultra strict version for gays and another for hetero's?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is how the law of chastity is defined in the temple. No more, no less

No it isn't. That is part of the law. Those that you are "legally and lawfully married to".  IOW as the Lord out lines. Gay marriage is not something the Lord approves of.

[ksfisher]

 

 

I just keep coming back to the question-

What is God's plan for gays?

- Will they still be gay in the next life ( no reason to expect otherwise)

- Do they have any opportunity for eternal happiness in a loving, committed relationship ( it doesn't appear so)

- Are they inherently sinful for eternity and unable to meet the measure of their creation and meant to live alone forever?

- With that kind of teaching coupled with the disrespect they get from active, faithful church members, why would any gay person want to be a member?

- Why do we not have more revelation on this topic?

 

I think those are very good questions.  I believe that God will allow his children to be what they truly desire to be (as long as it isn't harmful to another). 

 

Another question to think about.  If God planted within us, at creation, the desire to multiply and replenish the earth, will those desires remain after this life? 

 

And if that desire to multiply and replenish leaves us after this life, may not homosexual desires also leave? 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

So are gay people who hold hands or kiss breaking the law of chastity? In other words, are there 2 separate laws of chastity? 1 ultra strict version for gays and another for hetero's?

In a certain light yes. Those relationships are forbidden. I don't see how you could get around it. Obviously holding hands is not as serious as gay sex or gay marriage. But they are wrong.

 

And even if I am wrong on this one point, "holding hands" gay marriage in and of it's self is a sin. You are totally trying to side track this discussion with an irrelevant point.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

No it isn't. That is part of the law. Those that you are "legally and lawfully married to".  IOW as the Lord out lines. Gay marriage is not something the Lord approves of.

 

So you're changing the standard definition for "legally and lawfully". Okay, at least I understand your position.

OR

The church could change the definition of chastity to fit the current legal and lawful environment.

[Duncan]

Then why make stealing or allow it and then possibly condemn people for it?

Take your favorite sin and insert it were homosexuality is. See how easy it is to rationalize any sin?

 

I assume when you say homosexuality you are referring to those that act on the impulses.

 

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

[ksfisher]

 

 

As a church we are so focused on REJECTING the sin that we lose sight of accepting the individual. Seeking out inactive gay members to excommunicate them hardly feels like we are accepting them as individuals.

 

How many gay members have been sought out?  I would hardly call this a movement.

 

On the other hand, is it merciful to an individual to have them eternally bound by a covenant that they have not intention of keeping?  Or is it more merciful to release them from the obligations associated with that covenant?

[Duncan]

I think those are very good questions.  I believe that God will allow his children to be what they truly desire to be (as long as it isn't harmful to another). 

 

Another question to think about.  If God planted within us, at creation, the desire to multiply and replenish the earth, will those desires remain after this life? 

 

And if that desire to multiply and replenish leaves us after this life, may not homosexual desires also leave? 

 

so what was the purpose of homosexuality in the first place and if it's going to change in the next life, why bother excommunicating people in this life, is my question? as I say we need some clarification! hahahaha!

[HappyJackWagon]

 

In a certain light yes. Those relationships are forbidden. I don't see how you could get around it. Obviously holding hands is not as serious as gay sex or gay marriage. But they are wrong.

 

And even if I am wrong on this one point, "holding hands" gay marriage in and of it's self is a sin. You are totally trying to side track this discussion with an irrelevant point.

 

No, I'm not trying to side track but rather show the inconsistency and unfairness in the double standard.

[ksfisher]

That is how the law of chastity is defined in the temple. No more, no less

 

And the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  Nor more, no less.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

How many gay members have been sought out?  I would hardly call this a movement.

 

On the other hand, is it merciful to an individual to have them eternally bound by a covenant that they have not intention of keeping?  Or is it more merciful to release them from the obligations associated with that covenant?

 

Perhaps they could make that decision on their own instead of having men whom they often don't even know, make that decision for them.

[Gray]

No it isn't. That is part of the law. Those that you are "legally and lawfully married to".  IOW as the Lord out lines. Gay marriage is not something the Lord approves of.

 

You can add to the law of chastity if you wish, but it's clear and simple of you pay attention to the endowment. 

 

Legally and lawfully refer of course to civil law. And the civil law increasingly recognizes gay marriage. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

And the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  Nor more, no less.

 

Yes, that's the church's current policy. 

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

So you're changing the standard definition for "legally and lawfully". Okay, at least I understand your position.

OR

The church could change the definition of chastity to fit the current legal and lawful environment.

 

Of course it could. But don't hold your breath. IE; At one time it was legal and lawful to have multiple wives and concubines. Now having such will get you ex'd.