Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 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. Sigh. So you think gay marriage is just fine and dandy now because civil law has changed? Maybe you are the one that needs to pay attention.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) . Edited May 8, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes, that's the church's current policy. Now it is just a policy. I see.
Gray Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Sigh. So you think gay marriage is just fine and dandy now because civil law has changed? Maybe you are the one that needs to pay attention. No, that's not my argument. I'm just trying to be clear about what is and what is not in the law of chastity as it stands now. Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray
strappinglad Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I know of quite a few heterosexual people who have reached senior citizen status and have never been married. Why would God put them on the earth and not allow them to fulfill all covenants in this life. And yet they have had enduring friendships their whole lives. They have participated in all aspects of Church and temple EXCEPT that of marriage. I guess it is unfair of us to require them to live the law of chastity, married or not.I agree that the Church will have to update the handbook one of these days to encompass the new and improved definition of marriage. That it wasn't done 100 years ago must surely speak to our prophet's lack of vision. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Sigh. So you think gay marriage is just fine and dandy now because civil law has changed? Maybe you are the one that needs to pay attention. I think the church needs to develop better answers to the questions I previously asked. Right now all they've got is "being gay is icky and sinful". The end. There is much more we need to know and understand or members will, with increasing numbers, reject the double standards the church has for gays. 2
Gray Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Now it is just a policy. I see. Of course it is. What else would it be?
Gray Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) I know of quite a few heterosexual people who have reached senior citizen status and have never been married. Why would God put them on the earth and not allow them to fulfill all covenants in this life. And yet they have had enduring friendships their whole lives. They have participated in all aspects of Church and temple EXCEPT that of marriage. I guess it is unfair of us to require them to live the law of chastity, married or not.I agree that the Church will have to update the handbook one of these days to encompass the new and improved definition of marriage. That it wasn't done 100 years ago must surely speak to our prophet's lack of vision. No one has forbidden them from marrying. Although of course the cultural taboo of marrying non-members has created many lifelong singles in the church. Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray
ERayR Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 A bishop might not feel the need to pursue the matter very quickly if the member was inactive and living out of state. If he was living out of state he was in a different ward and not within the bishops jurisdiction. When he moved back home his records were moved to the bishops ward and it the came under his jurisdiction.
ALarson Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) If he was living out of state he was in a different ward and not within the bishops jurisdiction. When he moved back home his records were moved to the bishops ward and it the came under his jurisdiction.Had he moved back home? I thought he was just home for the summer or to visit, but maybe I misread. I think his husband was still in New York finishing up some work and isn't with him. Maybe they both plan on moving back? Edited to add that I see that it states he had "moved home for the summer", so maybe his records were transferred from New York. Edited May 8, 2015 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Had he moved back home? I thought he was just home for the summer or to visit, but maybe I misread. I think his husband was still in New York finishing up some work and isn't with him. Maybe they both plan on moving back? Edited to add that I see that it states he had "moved home for the summer", so maybe his records were transferred from New York. His records likely never left the Utah ward. Inactive individuals usually don't go through the effort of having their records moved. So when he came back home for the summer the bishop pounced.
ERayR Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 His records likely never left the Utah ward. Inactive individuals usually don't go through the effort of having their records moved. So when he came back home for the summer the bishop pounced. But the ward clerk does.
Calm Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) What I feel the issue here is that at least these members are attempting to marry and stay within a committed relationship. The church has issued a statement that it's ok for members to support gay marriage.Stating that it is okay for members to be supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage is not the same as saying it is morally okay to participate in same sex marriage. Edited May 8, 2015 by calmoriah
Mormonmaniac Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes, that's the church's current policy. And that is all that really matters- the church policy, not the government, not society, not the world.
ERayR Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I think we all get that. What I feel the issue here is that at least these members are attempting to marry and stay within a committed relationship. The church has issued a statement that it's ok for members to support gay marriage, so why would a Bishop contact an inactive, gay member and hold a court on him for getting married? Why not just leave him alone? Again, maybe there's more to this story that we don't know yet. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
Calm Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) This isn't the first time it happened. Back when Mass? was the first state to legalize ssmarriage there was an LDS man who was excommunicated...can't remember his name though, his spouse was not a member and I don't remember if e attended church, but he was publicizing his being both SS married and LDS at the time. Memory wasn't perfect but close enough to find it: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635192107/Gay-man-faces-LDS-excommunication-over-marriage.html?pg=all Edited May 8, 2015 by calmoriah
Duncan Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I think the Proclamation on the Family will have to be clarified overtime or at least the policies of the Church, now that gay marriage is out there and this can of corn is open. Like, what gender is someone like Bruce Jenner? I never heard of him before last year and not entirely sure who he is??? but's let's face it if a person trying to fix themselves in this life faces church disciplne?? that's crazy!! Won't he be fixed in the next life? why kick someone out for that here?
carbon dioxide Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 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.Legally refers to the civil marriage, lawfully refers to the law of God. Gay marriage might be legal to civic law but will always be rebellion against the law of God. 2
carbon dioxide Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Stating that it is okay for members to be supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage is not the same as saying it is morally okay to participate in same sex marriage.Right. I support the legalization of all drugs including cocaine but that does not mean I would endorse people using it. 1
carbon dioxide Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I think the Proclamation on the Family will have to be clarified overtime or at least the policies of the Church, now that gay marriage is out there and this can of corn is open. Like, what gender is someone like Bruce Jenner? I never heard of him before last year and not entirely sure who he is??? but's let's face it if a person trying to fix themselves in this life faces church disciplne?? that's crazy!! Won't he be fixed in the next life? why kick someone out for that here?I don't think a clarification is needed. I think it is clear enough. The Church does not and should not have to clarify its position to fit the continuing moral decline of society. 3
Mordecai Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife... so then they are no more twain, but one flesh" --Jesus, arguing from the self-evidently true premise that men and women are made for each other (Mark 10:6-.
carbon dioxide Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 There is scant support for this viewpoint. 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?The law of chastity applies to all. For gay people it means they have to be chaste and if that means through their whole life than so be it if they want eternal life. God is not going to make exceptions to gay people. If God has to reject the entire population of the earth from the celestial kingdom because they do not live the laws, he will do it. No unclean thing can enter. 2
Duncan Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 The law of chastity applies to all. For gay people it means they have to be chaste and if that means through their whole life than so be it if they want eternal life. God is not going to make exceptions to gay people. If God has to reject the entire population of the earth from the celestial kingdom because they do not live the laws, he will do it. No unclean thing can enter. sounds like the Gospel is the right way but we as a society are the wrong people to live it! I understand that no unclean thing can dwell with God, we all will stand before God. We in the Church don't perfection from people and we are trying to get away from perfectionism in the Church, do we expect sexual perfection from our gay members? it's like walking on a tightrope without making any mistakes whatsoever, people aren't like the Wallendas!
Duncan Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife... so then they are no more twain, but one flesh" --Jesus, arguing from the self-evidently true premise that men and women are made for each other (Mark 10:6- . so, where did LGBTQ come from, space aliens? why do people feel the way they do? 1
ERayR Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 so, where did LGBTQ come from, space aliens? why do people feel the way they do? Oh it just evolved.
Recommended Posts