In Light Of New Policy, Should Members Who Cannot Disavow The Practice Of Same-Gendered Marriages Be Allowed Temple Recommends?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

We are all aware of the new policy requiring those converts that have a parent living in a same-gendered relationship to disavow the practice of same-gender marriage before being baptized. In addition on the other thread, several members indicated that the belief that same-sex marriage is a sin is a core doctrine of the church. Given that temple attendance is generally more restrictive than baptism, should members who cannot disavow the practice of same-gendered marriages be given temple recommends?

 

For the sake of discussion, please keep this as generic. We are not discussing any particular person / posters worthiness but general guideline. 

 

Please also do not discuss the policy itself on this thread.

 

If you vote for "only in limited circumstances" please note what conditions you think in general should be met.

 

Also apologies to the mods in advance if I crossed any lines with this topic or poll.

Edited November 11, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

Just a thought. You may have a lot of people not answer because they don't want to reveal their TR status.

[ERayR]

Are we now in the mode of making policy by discussion board polls.  The last I knew God didn't govern by polls.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just a thought. You may have a lot of people not answer because they don't want to reveal their TR status.

Its an anonymous poll?

 

Noted though. Apologies. I will edit.

[Buckeye]

Are we now in the mode of making policy by discussion board polls.  The last I knew God didn't govern by polls.

 

Oddly enough, the FP/Q12 decided to make significant changes to the temple endowment in the early 1990s after they conducted surveys of members regarding their views on different parts of the ceremony.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Buckeye

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are we now in the mode of making policy by discussion board polls.  The last I knew God didn't govern by polls.

I never implied that God governed by polls or that we should set policy by this poll. I am curious what people here think (similar to the evolution poll a bit ago) Please feel free not to participate. Thanks!

[KevinG]

I picked three...  Holding an unorthodox belief does not prevent one from making covenants and attending the temple.

 

However it must stop short of publicly teaching and promoting those beliefs that are in opposition to church doctrines.  If one does that, is asked to stop by the Bishop, and continues to do so, they are in a state of apostasy.

 

This question is a very good example of what I was trying to explain in the other thread.  Beliefs and actions are distinguished clearly in all policies regarding apostasy in the church.  I can see an 18 year old youth of a gay parent saying "I understand the practice of same sex marriage is not practiced by our church and I will not advocate its practice" as being a good enough disavowal of the practice without having to be probed about their personal feelings about their parents relationship.

[DJBrown]

The brethren are the target of a significant amount of pressure and criticism these days.  I don't think they could be more clear in their stand on same-sex marriage and associated issues.  They have conducted themselves with dignity and respect for other people.  I have a hard time believing that members of the church who will not stand with the brethren on the topic for which they are receiving the greatest criticism and persecution should have a temple recommend.  How can members answer the questions in the TR interview positively when they disagree with the prophets in what has become the sentinel topic in discussions about the church?  And a topic that is at the very heart of the doctrine of the church- eternal families and God's plan for exalting His children.

[KevinG]

The brethren are the target of a significant amount of pressure and criticism these days.  I don't think they could be more clear in their stand on same-sex marriage and associated issues.  They have conducted themselves with dignity and respect for other people.  I have a hard time believing that members of the church who will not stand with the brethren on the topic for which they are receiving the greatest criticism and persecution should have a temple recommend.  How can members answer the questions in the TR interview positively when they disagree with the prophets in what has become the sentinel topic in discussions about the church?  And a topic that is at the very heart of the doctrine of the church- eternal families and God's plan for exalting His children.

 

Having long pondered my faith and how to reconcile it with my gay friends and associates, I have considered how I can honestly answer these questions and be fair to both.

 

I am very honest with my associates that I believe homosexual acts are sinful.  I also believe that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes is sinful.  I also believe that partaking of alcoholic drinks is sinful.  I also believe that a heterosexual act outside of marriage is sinful...  the list is long.

 

But the one mitigating factor for my relationships with others who believe differently, is that I believe in respecting their agency to choose.  If they have not made covenants to abstain from drugs or coffee, or to enter only into a marriage with one man and one woman, it is not up to me or anyone else to prevent their exercise of moral agency.

 

It is also not up to me to judge their actions by my own covenants.  I share my beliefs to be sure.  I don't impose them on others.

 

So I can disavow practices for myself.  I can encourage my family and those within my stewardship to make and keep covenants I believe will benefit them eternally.  I can even enforce policy when it is my place (for example no use of tobacco for my Boy Scouts I lead)...  yet I do not need to enforce my beliefs on those who believe differently.  

The foundational belief in loving others, and respecting agency allow me to love others while keeping strict laws myself.

[carbon dioxide]

I can't answer the vote because the word "disavow" is not clear.  It is talking about whether SSM should not be legal in America or that SSM is a good, righteous thing that is morally equivalent to to heterosexual marriage.  The answer of that affects how I respond.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I can't answer the vote because the word "disavow" is not clear. It is talking about whether SSM should not be legal in America or that SSM is a good, righteous thing that is morally equivalent to to heterosexual marriage. The answer of that affects how I respond.

Disavow is the word the church uses in the new policy. Assume it means the same thing here.

Sorry that probably didn't help, but that's why I choose the word

Edited November 11, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Storm Rider]

I think anyone who can honestly answer the questions of the TR interview should have a recommend and use it as often as possible. 

[carbon dioxide]

Disavow is the word the church uses in the new policy. Assume it means the same thing here.

Sorry that probably didn't help, but that's why I choose the word

Yes and that is one problem I have with the policy.  It should be a little more clear.  Its the same problem I have with "support".  I think members can support the legal right for gays to marry and not have to disavow that right but for them to morally support gay marriage is pretty difficult.  It is like morally supporting adultery, prostitution, or other violations of the of chastity.  However even then I think TR should be more based on behavior than simple thought.  Perhaps going ot the Temple they will see more fully that the premise of gay marriage is against the plan of God. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

It's up to the Bishop/SP.

There's no more to be said.

[Mystery Meat]

I picked the first. I think it would be much more consistent and the issue/doctrine is important enough to require it.

[mfbukowski]

Yes and that is one problem I have with the policy.  It should be a little more clear.  Its the same problem I have with "support".  I think members can support the legal right for gays to marry and not have to disavow that right but for them to morally support gay marriage is pretty difficult.  It is like morally supporting adultery, prostitution, or other violations of the of chastity.  However even then I think TR should be more based on behavior than simple thought.  Perhaps going ot the Temple they will see more fully that the premise of gay marriage is against the plan of God.

But one can support choice for others without supporting their decisions.

It's a free country. That's my stand. If I want to have politically incorrect beliefs, I better defend the right to have them for all.

[rockpond]

I picked the first. I think it would be much more consistent and the issue/doctrine is important enough to require it.

 

You would lose a lot of people.  Including me and my family.

[mfbukowski]

But one can support choice for others without supporting their decisions.

It's a free country. That's my stand. If I want to have politically incorrect beliefs, I better defend the right to have them for all.

So for me, the poll is unanswerable.

 

I am a TBM with a recommend and I support the church's stance.  I support the right of others to have SSM, and do not disavow their rights.

 

I have no clue what "disavow the practice of ssm" means.  People should be free to do all kinds of things I would never dream of doing myself.

 

Does a vegan "disavow the practice" of eating meat?

 

Does someone in favor of gun control "disavow the practice of gun ownership"?

 

Does someone against abortion "disavow the practice" of others choosing to have one?

 

A tad too ambiguous for me.

[stemelbow]

I'm really curious if this is or will be a question the brethren consider. At one point they said a person can support SSM and still be a member in good standing (I presume holding a TR). With a number of my fellow members feeling like I should not be sitting there worshipping with them, in the temple, makes me wonder.

[ERayR]

You would lose a lot of people.  Including me and my family.

 

It is sad that you would choose homosexual behavior over the gospel.

[Tony Frank]

I did not vote because none of the options are acceptable to me.

 

Jesus Christ reveals through His prophet on the earth who is allowed into His temples. He will reveal to His prophet on the earth what needs to be asked in a temple recommend interview. No one should think their opinion on this matters. God's ways are not man's ways.

 

 

 

[rockpond]

It is sad that you would choose homosexual behavior over the gospel.

 

Who said I would be choosing homosexual behavior over the gospel?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So for me, the poll is unanswerable.

 

I am a TBM with a recommend and I support the church's stance.  I support the right of others to have SSM, and do not disavow their rights.

 

I have no clue what "disavow the practice of ssm" means.  People should be free to do all kinds of things I would never dream of doing myself.

 

Does a vegan "disavow the practice" of eating meat?

 

Does someone in favor of gun control "disavow the practice of gun ownership"?

 

Does someone against abortion "disavow the practice" of others choosing to have one?

 

A tad too ambiguous for me.

No comment other than to note that the language ("disavow the practice") came right out of the church's new policy. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I did not vote because none of the options are acceptable to me.

 

Jesus Christ reveals through His prophet on the earth who is allowed into His temples. He will reveal to His prophet on the earth what needs to be asked in a temple recommend interview. No one should think their opinion on this matters. God's ways are not man's ways.

I don't disagree with this. But given the revealed word of the Lord through his prophets that we have now, do you have an opinion?

[Tony Frank]

 

I don't disagree with this. But given the revealed word of the Lord through his prophets that we have now, do you have an opinion?

 

 

Living temple worthy and having a temple recommend are relatively easy, but Jesus Christ will not simply give us a temple recommend interview when we stand at His judgment bar. It is an abomination in the sight of God for anyone to engage in homosexuality, fornication, or adultery, and anyone refusing to accept that such behavior is an abomination in the sight of God will answer to God for their "opinion."

Edited November 11, 2015 by Tony Frank