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

[KevinG]

I don't think God will condemn for an opinion.  We do judge actions and teaching. 

 

Even the new policy draws that line.  You can believe any fool thing you want and still be a Mormon (I know I do) but what I teach when I represent the church in a talk, Sunday School, or as a member missionary is in line with the doctrines of the church.  If I do speculate I'm very clear that those ideas are speculation and not the gospel.

 

Pretending to represent the church and advocating openly for gay marriage, or entering into that arrangement is apostasy.  Believing that your gay friend in a partnership is loving and lovable is OK.

[ERayR]

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

 

That is what the policy that is causing so many all this distress is all about.

[mfbukowski]

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

Yes I know and it is clear to me they knew that too.

 

You could drive a truck through that loophole but most critical seem too literalistic to even understand that.

 

Also, if you change an "and" to an "or" in that last section 2 of the policy- 90% of the objections the critics raise go away.

 

There is plenty of room for interpretation but no one sees it.

 

Everyone is up in arms for nothing.

[ERayR]

Yes I know and it is clear to me they knew that too.

 

You could drive a truck through that loophole but most critical seem too literalistic to even understand that.

 

Also, if you change an "and" to an "or" in that last section 2 of the policy- 90% of the objections the critics raise go away.

 

There is plenty of room for interpretation but no one sees it.

 

Everyone is up in arms for nothing.

 

They are up in arms because it is a public opposition to homosexual behavior.

[CV75]

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.

How do you see it as ambiguous? Something like the disavowal not being in writing, or unenforceable?

 

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” (D&C 83:4). I can see how children by default or through acquiescence would naturally accept their legal custodians’ marital or cohabitation arrangement while they are essentially compelled to depend on them for all aspects of parenting, but they would be in a position to refuse, repudiate, reject or renounce this arrangement with regards to the free exercise of religion once they reach majority.

 

I think in the context of religious practice, their word is sufficient, and there is no enforcement (just attendant discipline).

[Mystery Meat]

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

 

Sadly (and I mean that) I think we already have (and others who would answer the question the same way).

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I always assume the statement one could support SSM was from a legal standpoint. I am not sure they ever meant one could support it within the Kingdom of God. I think that is a critical difference.

[Gray]

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.

 

By faithful Mormon, do you mean orthodox Mormon? Loyal Mormon? Active Mormon? Something else?

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think God will condemn for an opinion.  We do judge actions and teaching. 

 

Even the new policy draws that line.  You can believe any fool thing you want and still be a Mormon (I know I do) but what I teach when I represent the church in a talk, Sunday School, or as a member missionary is in line with the doctrines of the church.  If I do speculate I'm very clear that those ideas are speculation and not the gospel.

 

Pretending to represent the church and advocating openly for gay marriage, or entering into that arrangement is apostasy.  Believing that your gay friend in a partnership is loving and lovable is OK.

 

I agree with your last paragraph. However, I think the proponents of SSM among the members of the Church have necessitated a firm line drawn in the sand to preserve the doctrine and the flock. Many have started to manipulate other members into believing or even considering that this issue is somehow analogous to the racial priesthood ban, when it is not, and that SSM will one day be embraced in the Church. Sending a clear message is both fair and reasonable.

 

Of course, it is not up to me and I will sustain whatever happens.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I always assume the statement one could support SSM was from a legal standpoint. I am not sure they ever meant one could support it within the Kingdom of God. I think that is a critical difference.

 

For what it's worth -- and despite bad reporting -- no Church leader has ever said it was OK to support same-sex 'marriage'.

 

In the oft-referenced press conference, Elder Christofferson was specifically asked if 'supporting gay marriage' 'on Facebook or Twitter' would 'threaten somebody’s membership in the church'. (The immediate context was John Dehlin's disingenuous claim to media that he was being excommunicated for that very reason.) To which Elder Christofferson responded no ... before pointing out that the Church's preferred approach to such members is to use 'gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned' in the (implied) hope of correcting them.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Mystery Meat]

For what it's worth -- and despite bad reporting -- no Church leader has ever said it was OK to support same-sex 'marriage'.

 

In the oft-referenced press conference, Elder Christofferson was specifically asked if 'supporting gay marriage' 'on Facebook or Twitter' would 'threaten somebody’s membership in the church'. (The immediate context was John Dehlin's disingenuous claim to media that he was being excommunicated for that very reason.) To which Elder Christofferson responded no ... before pointing out that the Church's preferred approach to such members is to use 'gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned' in the (implied) hope of correcting them.

 

Thank you for the clarification. It has been duly noted.

[Hamba Tuhan]

By faithful Mormon, do you mean orthodox Mormon? Loyal Mormon? Active Mormon? Something else?

 

By definition, being faithful means being filled with both trust and loyalty.

 

The prime definition from the OED: 'constant in allegiance or affection; loyal, true'.

[rpn]

We have now been plainly counseled that ssm and cohabitation is sin and engaging in it as a church member is apostasy.  Notably this says nothing about whether or not church members can believe it is good public policy or appropriate law of the land.  And our leaders have said that is not a problem.

 

There is already a TR question that fits whether someone is a sympathizer with apostate groups.  Members don't have to quit associating with those who think and act apostate, but they cannot be part of an apostate movement and have a TR.

 

None of the survey answers were consistent with what I think.   I think that the need to disavow comes from those who are steeped and trained within the tradition to believe ssbehavior is as normal as heterosexual relationships. 

 

So no, I don't think there needs to be a TR question that says, you agree that ssm and cohabitation is against the Lord's law, and a sin.   After all, for most people this is merely a theoretical construct because they aren't gay and cannot commit the sin.

 

But yes, if a member is part of the gay movement that is trying to insist that the church accept and normalize same gender relationships, they will already fail the existing TR question.

[mfbukowski]

How do you see it as ambiguous? Something like the disavowal not being in writing, or unenforceable?

 

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” (D&C 83:4). I can see how children by default or through acquiescence would naturally accept their legal custodians’ marital or cohabitation arrangement while they are essentially compelled to depend on them for all aspects of parenting, but they would be in a position to refuse, repudiate, reject or renounce this arrangement with regards to the free exercise of religion once they reach majority.

 

I think in the context of religious practice, their word is sufficient, and there is no enforcement (just attendant discipline).

Oh, I see your eyes are not yet open. 

 

There's this tree over there....

 

I may post about it, maybe not.  I am deciding.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

By faithful Mormon, do you mean orthodox Mormon? Loyal Mormon? Active Mormon? Something else?

Initially I put temple recommend carrying. It was pointed out that the wording might make some uncomfortable. I think loyal, participating and active would satisfy faithful for me but Feel free to use whatever definition of faithful you want.

[mfbukowski]

We have now been plainly counseled that ssm and cohabitation is sin and engaging in it as a church member is apostasy.  Notably this says nothing about whether or not church members can believe it is good public policy or appropriate law of the land.  And our leaders have said that is not a problem.

 

There is already a TR question that fits whether someone is a sympathizer with apostate groups.  Members don't have to quit associating with those who think and act apostate, but they cannot be part of an apostate movement and have a TR.

 

None of the survey answers were consistent with what I think.   I think that the need to disavow comes from those who are steeped and trained within the tradition to believe ssbehavior is as normal as heterosexual relationships. 

 

So no, I don't think there needs to be a TR question that says, you agree that ssm and cohabitation is against the Lord's law, and a sin.   After all, for most people this is merely a theoretical construct because they aren't gay and cannot commit the sin.

 

But yes, if a member is part of the gay movement that is trying to insist that the church accept and normalize same gender relationships, they will already fail the existing TR question.

See?

 

Ambiguity.

[mfbukowski]

 

 

 

 

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."

 

Phew dude.  Blowtorch.

 

So what are your favorite sins you will have to answer for?

[Avatar4321]

I don't have the keys to make that decision and have no desire to make the decision. But I will sustain those that do.

[rockpond]

That is what the policy that is causing so many all this distress is all about.

You seem to have misinterpreted objection to the policy.

[Gray]

Initially I put temple recommend carrying. It was pointed out that the wording might make some uncomfortable. I think loyal, participating and active would satisfy faithful for me but Feel free to use whatever definition of faithful you want.

 

Got it, thanks

[Gray]

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

 

Is it better to choose an anti-gay crusade over the gospel?

[Tacenda]

http://zelphontheshelf.com/mormons-who-really-nailed-the-whole-be-like-jesus-thing/

Many LDS are reaching out...hopefully it's ok to put here. All the other threads were closed.

[Ares]

Is it better to choose an anti-gay crusade over the gospel?

. This is over the top. Thread closed.