Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Boanerges]

Because homosexual sex is a sin. Marriage does not negate that.

 In other words, if I ask you why the sky is blue, your answer that the sky is blue because it's blue is an acceptable answer.

[ALarson]

Generally, if someone is extremely inactive (to the point of not really considering themselves to be Mormon, or not even being aware of being Mormon), they are low on the priority list of "reclaiming" (low-hanging fruit, etc.). 

 

If I were aware of gay members who had been married, I would call them in to talk and act based on how that goes, even if they were completely inactive (and it's extremely likely that members who have a gay civil marriage would not be active).

So, if they were "extremely inactive" and declined to meet with you, would you just leave them alone at that point or proceed with holding a court for them?

Edited May 8, 2015 by ALarson

[rongo]

 

 

It's interesting that you're more comfortable making assumptions about intent as opposed to accepting the literal meaning of the words. Yet you are very literal in declaring God's word about gays without questioning any underlying assumptions. That is what we sometimes call irony.

It's what I call sophistry and word games. 

 

Are you seriously claiming that the intent when the phrasing in the temple was written included gay marriages as well? 

 

I know that people are trying to parse words to claim that all the Church needs to do is consider faithful gay marriages as chaste, and it will solve everything. The reason why this is delusional is because of the doctrinal underpinnings behind the Mormon law of chastity. 

[busybee]

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

We could argue the same for any other sexual proclivity.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It's what I call sophistry and word games. 

 

Are you seriously claiming that the intent when the phrasing in the temple was written included gay marriages as well? 

 

I know that people are trying to parse words to claim that all the Church needs to do is consider faithful gay marriages as chaste, and it will solve everything. The reason why this is delusional is because of the doctrinal underpinnings behind the Mormon law of chastity.

 

Actually, I'm claiming that the temple phrasing is purposefully vague in its definition of chastity to allow for alternative forms of marriage--particularly plural marriage. If they want to leave the door open to alternative lifestyles then that door is open to other alternative lifestyles until they close it.

Do you always accuse people of sophism if they disagree with you?

[carbon dioxide]

It's what I call sophistry and word games. 

 

Are you seriously claiming that the intent when the phrasing in the temple was written included gay marriages as well? 

 

I know that people are trying to parse words to claim that all the Church needs to do is consider faithful gay marriages as chaste, and it will solve everything. The reason why this is delusional is because of the doctrinal underpinnings behind the Mormon law of chastity. 

About 2% of the population is gay according the CDC.  So about 2% of the LDS membership would be gay. So we are really looking a very minor portion of the membership so there really is no problem to be solved.  Now a big problem would be created if the Church was to accept SSM.   I could easily see the church breaking apart just to appease a 2% group.  One can only look at non-LDS denominations and see how this issue has torn them apart.  Why would any member want any of that?

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[busybee]

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

No it is 'no sexual relations with your husband or wife'

[rongo]

You do realize that just because you summon them doesn't mean they are obligated to come, don't you? 

Of course I do.

 

You may be a judge in Israel, but you are not their ruler - and they have their agency.

 

Of course they do.

 

And even if they did come, they are further not obligated to tell you anything.

 

Of course they're not.

 

 I was not in that situation, but I was inactive for a period of time - and refused summons (AKA the ES making an appointment) by my bishop. I allowed him to come to my home if he called and asked, and then I discussed what I wanted to discuss (that only happened once over the period of years).

 

Yeah, if someone refused to meet with me, I would try to visit them (like yours did). I might also send a letter, explaining why I wanted to meet with them, but had encountered resistance. If there were no response to that, depending on the seriousness, at that point I might deliver/send another letter convening a disciplinary council (either witnessed by two brethren or sent certified mail if impossible to hand deliver). Sometimes people react like that. 

 

Your Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

 

Jedi mind tricks, indeed. All we can do is try to meet with people, and they can play the "you're no the boss of me!" card, if they want. If something is seriousness enough, and they don't respond, DCs can be convened in absentia.

 

It sounded like your bishop just wanted to talk to you, not discipline you.

[Boanerges]

 

 

Actually, I'm claiming that the temple phrasing is purposefully vague in its definition of chastity to allow for alternative forms of marriage--particularly plural marriage. If they want to leave the door open to alternative lifestyles then that door is open to other alternative lifestyles until they close it.

Do you always accuse people of sophism if they disagree with you?

And an interesting question in those states where gay marriage is legal (including Utah, of course) is why the wording has not been changed to speficially state "legal and lawful" marriage between a man and a woman.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Boanerges

[HappyJackWagon]

 

About 2% of the population is gay according the CDC.  So about 2% of the LDS membership would be gay. So we are really looking a very minor portion of the membership so there really is no problem to be solved.  Now a big problem would be created if the Church was to accept SSM.   I could easily see the church breaking apart just to appease a 2% group.  One can only look at non-LDS denominations and see how this issue has torn them apart.  Why would any member want any of that?

 

2% are gay but don't forget about their immediate and extended families as well as friends.

Of course it's a problem to be addressed even IF it only effected 2% of the people. Those 2% are just as important as the other 98. It kind of reminds me of a parable I heard once.

[rongo]

So, if they were "extremely inactive" and declined to meet with you, would you just leave them alone at that point or proceed with holding a court for them?

It depends entirely on the whole situation. If it's really serious and they refuse to meet (or open their door), then I would try via certified letter before initiating disciplinary action. 

 

Continued, sustained refusal is kind of a red flag, don't you think?

[Boanerges]

 

 

 

Your Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

 

Jedi mind tricks, indeed. All we can do is try to meet with people, and they can play the "you're no the boss of me!" card, if they want. If something is seriousness enough, and they don't respond, DCs can be convened in absentia.

 

It sounded like your bishop just wanted to talk to you, not discipline you.

 

He did, I didn't necessarily want to talk to him (although for the record I was not sinful, lazy, or offended). We had nothing to talk about, I chose not to come to church and that was none of his business. Were it his business I would have talked to him. I also avoid my current bishop, but mostly because he's one of those guys that's hard to get away from once you start a conversation and we also have no reason to meet.

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

2% are gay but don't forget about their immediate and extended families as well as friends.

Of course it's a problem to be addressed even IF it only effected 2% of the people. Those 2% are just as important as the other 98. It kind of reminds me of a parable I heard once.

Does the parable that you refer to mean that to save the one sheep, one offends and turns off the rest of the herd?   Better to lose one sheep than save that sheep and then return to find that 80 other sheep have left as a result.  If there ever comes a time that the Church wants to blow itself up, it should accept SSM.  That pretty much will do it. Perhaps what will save the Church is that more of its membership is now outside America and western countries that are slowly drinking this poison.  The Saints in Africa for example may have to save the American saints from themselves.

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rongo]

And an interesting question in those states where gay marriage is legal (including Utah, of course) is why the wording has not been changed to speficially state "legal and lawful" marriage between a man and a woman.

Because nobody, really, actually thinks that this is the legal loophole that will open the floodgates. Everyone knows that only marriage is meant. 

 

If political/social agitation punches away at that perceived cut above the eye, it could easily be changed to match the wording in the PotF (" the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife").

[Boanerges]

It depends entirely on the whole situation. If it's really serious and they refuse to meet (or open their door), then I would try via certified letter before initiating disciplinary action. 

 

Continued, sustained refusal is kind of a red flag, don't you think?

 

What would you define as extremely inactive? Simply not coming to church, even for a number of years, is not sinful. There are people in my ward that I have lived in for 30 years that I have never met, they have never been to church. Are they extremely inactive? (Yes in my book.) Do they deserve discipline? For that alone, certsainly not - and I am positive my SP would not approve such an action.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Does the parable that you refer to mean that to save the one sheep, one offends and turns off the rest of the herd?   Better to lose one sheep than save that sheep and then return to find that 80 other sheep have left as a result.  If there ever comes a time that the Church wants to blow itself up, it should accept SSM.  That pretty much will do it.

 

I don't recall whether or not the shepherd polled the other 99 to see if they would be offended if he left them to seek after the 1. It could have happened that way.

So now God cares more about offending the 98% than he does seeking after the 2% ? I'm thinking we believe in a different kind of God.

[busybee]

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. 

This is my opinion only, but, because we have a rather different view on marriage compared to most others, ie that it can be eternal in nature when performed in the Temple under proper authority, the 'legally' part refers to the civil laws, while the 'lawfully' part refers to God's laws. If both were merely referring to the civil requirements, then one or the other of those two words is redundant. Don't forget that in most countries around the world marriages performed in Temples are not legally recognized. People have to have a civil marriage performed before they can be sealed in the Temple. In countries where Temple marriages are recognized, the civil obligation is fulfilled in the sealing ordinance. So we are in effect, legally (civilly) and lawfully (according to God's law) married. Two different components of the same marriage. Same sex marriages may be legal, but are they lawful according to God's law??

Edited May 8, 2015 by busybee

[rongo]

He did, I didn't necessarily want to talk to him (although for the record I was not sinful, lazy, or offended). We had nothing to talk about, I chose not to come to church and that was none of his business. Were it his business I would have talked to him. I also avoid my current bishop, but mostly because he's one of those guys that's hard to get away from once you start a conversation and we also have no reason to meet.

Oh, you're one of those members.

 

Look at it from his perspective. You're one of his flock, and you appear to be astray. Like a stray sheep being annoyed that the shepherd is trying to reclaim him because "we have nothing to talk about."

 

It might help if you allowed your current bishop to talk to you and you told him what you're sharing here. Once he realizes that there are other more likely "low-hanging fruit," he will prioritize and budget his time in their favor. 

[rongo]

 

 

I don't recall whether or not the shepherd polled the other 99 to see if they would be offended if he left them to seek after the 1. It could have happened that way.

So now God cares more about offending the 98% than he does seeking after the 2% ? I'm thinking we believe in a different kind of God.

What's interesting with the above is that you don't want the shepherd to really go after the 1. Not in a way that will save them. 

 

In other words, you don't want the one/2% or whatever to be offended, but you try to turn the tables and poke the Church for ostensibly not wanting to offend the "98%."

[Storm Rider]

 

 

2% are gay but don't forget about their immediate and extended families as well as friends.

Of course it's a problem to be addressed even IF it only effected 2% of the people. Those 2% are just as important as the other 98. It kind of reminds me of a parable I heard once.

 

Ah, yes - you would be talking about going out to find the one who is lost and returning them to the fold.  Returning to the fold may require repentance and becoming of one mind and one heart.  It is not accepting the lost as lost and keeping them lost.  Big difference.

[carbon dioxide]

What would you define as extremely inactive? Simply not coming to church, even for a number of years, is not sinful. There are people in my ward that I have lived in for 30 years that I have never met, they have never been to church. Are they extremely inactive? (Yes in my book.) Do they deserve discipline? For that alone, certsainly not - and I am positive my SP would not approve such an action.

As far as I know, church discipline is for sins of commission and not sins of omission.  If inactivity is a sin, it would be omission.

[rongo]

What would you define as extremely inactive? Simply not coming to church, even for a number of years, is not sinful. 

Agreed. And I've never disciplined people for mere inattendance.

 

There are people in my ward that I have lived in for 30 years that I have never met, they have never been to church. Are they extremely inactive? (Yes in my book.)

 

In mine, too.

 

Do they deserve discipline? For that alone, certainly not - and I am positive my SP would not approve such an action.

 

We agree completely. 

[Boanerges]

Oh, you're one of those members.

 

Look at it from his perspective. You're one of his flock, and you appear to be astray. Like a stray sheep being annoyed that the shepherd is trying to reclaim him because "we have nothing to talk about."

 

It might help if you allowed your current bishop to talk to you and you told him what you're sharing here. Once he realizes that there are other more likely "low-hanging fruit," he will prioritize and budget his time in their favor. 

 

He's actually pretty much aware of my status as a prodigal son and a high councilor. He, and my SP, are also aware of my views on gay marriage and other issues. While the stake in general, my ward, and the ward I advise are aware I am a prodigal, they are not aware of my views on gay marriage and those other issues. They tend to like my gospel of Jesus Christ-centered talks, however. That's the kind of member I am.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

so, where did LGBTQ come from, space aliens? why do people feel the way they do?

That is the question is it not? And it is hardly settled.

[rongo]

He's actually pretty much aware of my status as a prodigal son and a high councilor. He, and my SP, are also aware of my views on gay marriage and other issues. While the stake in general, my ward, and the ward I advise are aware I am a prodigal, they are not aware of my views on gay marriage and those other issues. They tend to like my gospel of Jesus Christ-centered talks, however. That's the kind of member I am.

Thanks!

 

I'm confused, though. You're on the high council, but you won't let your bishop meet with you?