Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Duncan]

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

 

we need to know that in the CHI, otherwise SSM couples could turn into witch hunts. They MAY be exed not necessarily, as has been stated before gay marriage has opened up a can of tuna fish that the Church policies have to be updated

[ALarson]

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.

I have to believe that if this "extremely inactive" member was just minding their own business and not speaking out against the church or forming groups opposing the church, etc., that Rongo (or most Bishops) would not actively seek them out just because he'd heard they were in a same-sex marriage.

 

Buy maybe I'm wrong as evidenced by the case in this thread?

Edited May 8, 2015 by ALarson

[rongo]

I have to believe that if this "extremely inactive" member was just minding their own business and not speaking out against the church or forming groups opposing the church, etc., that Rongo (or most Bishops) would not actively seek them out just because he'd heard they were in a same-sex marriage.

We probably wouldn't hear at all. Possibly, in the course of visiting inactive members, one might learn some things, but if they're not attending and don't allow home/visiting teachers, we probably don't know much at all about them (and wouldn't hear about their gay marriage or whatever). Unless they went vocally public . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I guess, like me, that you need to go to the temple and pay attention to the endowment per Gray. You just don't seem to get it.

 

 

BTW I agree with you just in case you were wondering.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

we need to know that in the CHI, otherwise SSM couples could turn into witch hunts. They MAY be exed not necessarily, as has been stated before gay marriage has opened up a can of tuna fish that the Church policies have to be updated

No we don't and no they wont. I think you are over stating any case here. I fail to see why this is even an issue for you.

[rongo]

That is a really good observation by busybee. 

 

I think that answers why the wording hasn't changed: legally (civil) and lawfully (in the eyes of God) are two conditions that have to be meant. If the words aren't redundant.

 

I'll remember that! 

[carbon dioxide]

we need to know that in the CHI, otherwise SSM couples could turn into witch hunts. They MAY be exed not necessarily, as has been stated before gay marriage has opened up a can of tuna fish that the Church policies have to be updated

What exactly do they need to be updated to.  They are pretty clear to me. 

[Boanerges]

Thanks!

 

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

 He hasn't asked. If he did ask I'd need to know what it's about - I'd rather not waste his time or mine. We did share the podium on Easter - I liked his talk and he liked mine, they were complimentary. I avoid him in the halls because the guy just doesn't know when to shut up. It does make it easier that I'm only there one or two Sundays a month.

 

The last bishop didn't ask much, either, which was fine with me. We only met that once at my house, he understands I never really liked him much. He was apparently told by the SP to leave me alone, but I didn't know that until after the robe, shoes, ring, fatted calf, etc. He's certainly much more like the other son.

 

Oh, I take that back, we did meet once more - in a temple recommend interview where my words were generally confined to "yes" and "no." I had a much more in depth conversation with the SP counselor who did the second part - but we are old friends and I was once his counselor when he was bishop.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Boanerges

[Gray]

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

 

Well, it says no relations with anyone other than your husband or wife. Otherwise I think everyone would be up in arms.

 

And married gay couples are just as capable of meeting that standard as you or I. A lesbian woman should only have relations with her wife, and no one else. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

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?

 

You're right, such a change could fracture the church right now. But in 20, 30, 40 years, I suspect the change would be met with thanksgiving by most members of the church. 

[rongo]

Well, it says no relations with anyone other than your husband or wife. Otherwise I think everyone would be up in arms.

 

 

". . . to whom you are legally and lawfully married."

 

Busybee made the good point that legally refers to civil, and lawfully refers to in the eyes of God. Or the phrase is redundant.

 

And married gay couples are just as capable of meeting that standard as you or I.

 

Not according to the CoJCoLDS or its doctrine.

[Mormonmaniac]

It's also church policy not to cook foods from scratch in ward building kitchens.

Really? I have heard we do not go to the church to have teeth pulled either.

[Gray]

". . . to whom you are legally and lawfully married."

 

Busybee made the good point that legally refers to civil, and lawfully refers to in the eyes of God. Or the phrase is redundant.

 

The phrase IS redundant. It's not a phrase we invented, but I've never heard anyone interpret it the way it has been interpreted in this thread. It seems a redefinition of terms for convenience only, in this particular argument. 

 

 

Not according to the CoJCoLDS or its doctrine.

 

According to the plain meaning of English words, they are. 

 

When the church is talking about "legally & lawfully" they always seem to be talking about getting a license to marry. As in, "shacking up" is not allowed. Otherwise we wouldn't consider non-sealed hetero couples to be lawfully married and thus in violation of the law of chastity. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[JulieM]

When the church is talking about "legally & lawfully" they always seem to be talking about getting a license to marry. As in, "shacking up" is not allowed. Otherwise we wouldn't consider non-sealed hetero couples to be lawfully married and thus in violation of the law of chastity.

If legally and lawfully mean two different things, then polygamous wives only meet one of those, right? So, it's a problem either way those words are intrepreted. Or was it different wording back in the early days of the church? Edited May 8, 2015 by JulieM

[rongo]

I think the wording was different then. Back then, we didn't care about the legally part . . .

[carbon dioxide]

You're right, such a change could fracture the church right now. But in 20, 30, 40 years, I suspect the change would be met with thanksgiving by most members of the church. 

Doubt it.  The faithful saints in the third would would preach righteous repentance to those who would accept it.  Hopefully I would be dead before I saw such a sad and horrible thing to occur.  I guess the best thing I can do is teach my kids correctly so if the Satan is able to get much of the Church to accept this that they will reject that wicked portion of the Church and follow the group that would reject it.

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ksfisher]

The law of chastity, as currently defined in the temple, is absolutely silent on gay marriage.

I wonder what would happen if you asked President Monson, who holds the priesthood keys by which all temple ordinances are performed, if the temple is silent about gay marriage.

[california boy]

I believe what your views on this subject is - is determined by what you think of Christ and the gospel he taught

[Gray]

If legally and lawfully mean two different things, then polygamous wives only meet one of those, right? So, it's a problem either way those words are intrepreted. Or was it different wording back in the early days of the church?

 

I'm not sure when the law of chastity as it currently appears was inserted into the endowment. Was it in the Nauvoo endowment? Or added down the road sometime? I don't know

[Gray]

I wonder what would happen if you asked President Monson, who holds the priesthood keys by which all temple ordinances are performed, if the temple is silent about gay marriage.

 

Would you be asking him for his views, or would you be asking him for a revelation?

[Gray]

Doubt it.  The faithful saints in the third would would preach righteous repentance to those who would accept it.  Hopefully I would be dead before I saw such a sad and horrible thing to occur.  I guess the best thing I can do is teach my kids correctly so if the Satan is able to get much of the Church to accept this that they will reject that wicked portion of the Church and follow the group that would reject it.

 

I suspect at some point a majority of saints would have felt indignant about the idea of allowing blacks into the temple. Things change. 

[ALarson]

I believe what your views on this subject is - is determined by what you think of Christ and the gospel he taught

I agree.  I was just sitting here thinking as I read through these last few pages, I wonder how Christ would treat this man (or others who have entered into marriages with the person they love)? Would He excommunicate them?  Would He kick them out of His church?  I really doubt it.

 

(I know I'll get that He'd love the sinner and hate the sin, but would he ask them to leave?)

[ksfisher]

I agree.  I was just sitting here thinking as I read through these last few pages, I wonder how Christ would treat this man (or others who have entered into marriages with the person they love)? Would He excommunicate them?  Would He kick them out of His church?  I really doubt it.

 

(I know I'll get that He'd love the sinner and hate the sin, but would he ask them to leave?)

Christ did drive the money changers out of the temple. He also cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit.

[ALarson]

Doubt it.  The faithful saints in the third would would preach righteous repentance to those who would accept it.  Hopefully I would be dead before I saw such a sad and horrible thing to occur.  I guess the best thing I can do is teach my kids correctly so if the Satan is able to get much of the Church to accept this that they will reject that wicked portion of the Church and follow the group that would reject it.

Aren't you the same one who stated in another thread that you'd be fine with another man taking your wife for his own wife (polyandry) or your daughter (like Helen Mar Kimball)?  If I'm mistaken and it was someone else, I apologize.

 

But if so, it boggles my mind that you're ok with following that, but speak like this about gay marriage.  

[rongo]

Would you be asking him for his views, or would you be asking him for a revelation?

Either. What do you think he would say?