Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[HappyJackWagon]

Of course they can attend. But that doesn't mean they're welcome.

[stemelbow]

I know of one case in which someone was not welcome.  I've told this story here before but it bears repeating.

A couple of years ago, I was in the EQ presidency.  We met Sunday morning and our EQP told me, my neighbor down the street who had come for sacrament in recent weeks, was no longer welcome.  That he was told by the bishop our responsibility as an EQ was to man each door throughout the meeting and let people in, but otherwise the doors would be locked.  If that guy came we were to go straight to the Bishop and tell him he's trying to get in.  Come to find out, the reasoning was that he sat in the back of the Chapel, and tried to record sacrament meeting, was their guess.  I sat by him one of the weeks, and though he was on his phone I saw no reason whatsoever to think he was recording sacrament, so I said so.  I straight up dissented from the outset, said my piece about it and forgot about it, although as I walked the hallways for weeks I'd see guys standing by the doors letting people in as the doors were locked.  We didn't see the guy for a few weeks, then one day, my EQP was driving to Church in between meetings and saw the guy walking towards the Church.  he ran in, and told the bishop the poor guy was coming.  The bishop and his entourage went outside to meet him and told him he's not welcome anymore.  The guy sadly walked off and we haven't seen him attempt to come to Church since.

Anyway, not being welcomed has happened and will probably happen again.  I could imagine some gay people will feel and have felt similarly rejected. 

[Five Solas]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Here is the official church position on the matter:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng

those with same sex attraction are welcome to church services so long as they obey the same rules as everyone else and respect the sanctity of the services.

Those engaged in same sex acts, however, cannot receive the covenants offered in the temple nor be baptized. The latter would be quite injurious to their salvation.

The notion that gays receiving LDS baptism or other covenants could be "injurious to their salvation" isn't consistent with my understanding of LDS theology.  The statement "injurious to their exaltation"--now that would make sense to me.  Essentially everyone is saved in the LDS scheme of things and receives some measure of glory in whatever kingdom he or she merits.  Mormonism is Universalist regarding salvation.  (Some LDS have even questioned whether Judas Iscariot qualifies as a "son of perdition.")

I know it's a little tangential to the thread, but does someone have a quick explanation how gays could "injure" their "salvation" according to LDS teaching?

--Erik

Edited December 8, 2015 by Five Solas

[Gillebre]

Making covenants one does not intend to keep would definitely qualify as 'injurious' in my opinion. If there's a member of the Church who experiences those feelings and yet chooses to follow the teachings of the Lord through the Prophet and the Church then they should definitely receive those covenants. However, if someone is in a gay marriage and wants to be a Church member, it's better off for them in the big picture to not be members because their very marriage relationship would be a violation of those covenants. Just a thought.

[BlueDreams]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I know it's a little tangential to the thread, but does someone have a quick explanation how gays could "injure" their "salvation" according to LDS teaching?

Salvation is a term that's used pretty flexibly at times in LDS circles. So in one sense, yes all are saved...but in another it could also be described as degrees of salvation (ie. the three degrees of glory) based on how much light one receives. To take on covenants while knowingly in a state of active sinning would be considered worse than if one did not take on the covenants at all. That's why with major disruptions of covenants it can be considered a mercy to not partake in said ordinances, to the point of excommunication depending on said acts, because you are in a state that blasphemes your covenants. Ergo one could "injure" your salvation, though I don't know if I've ever used said term before nor would I.

 

With luv,

BD

[Five Solas]

8 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

Making covenants one does not intend to keep would definitely qualify as 'injurious' in my opinion. If there's a member of the Church who experiences those feelings and yet chooses to follow the teachings of the Lord through the Prophet and the Church then they should definitely receive those covenants. However, if someone is in a gay marriage and wants to be a Church member, it's better off for them in the big picture to not be members because their very marriage relationship would be a violation of those covenants. Just a thought.

I think we both agree such covenants in such circumstances aren't sensible.  But how exactly is it "injurious" to "salvation" in LDS teaching?  Injurious to exaltation--i get that, maybe such a person would receive a lesser kingdom in the next life.  Injurious to salvation--it doesn't make any sense to me.  They're still going to receive eternal life.    

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Salvation is a term that's used pretty flexibly at times in LDS circles. So in one sense, yes all are saved...but in another it could also be described as degrees of salvation (ie. the three degrees of glory) based on how much light one receives. To take on covenants while knowingly in a state of active sinning would be considered worse than if one did not take on the covenants at all. That's why with major disruptions of covenants it can be considered a mercy to not partake in said ordinances, to the point of excommunication depending on said acts, because you are in a state that blasphemes your covenants. Ergo one could "injure" your salvation, though I don't know if I've ever used said term before nor would I.

 

With luv,

BD

Not to derail, but of those that struggle to believe or don't at all, should they refrain from taking the sacrament, since they are making covenants when doing so.

[BlueDreams]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail, but of those that struggle to believe or don't at all, should they refrain from taking the sacrament, since they are making covenants when doing so.

I would leave that up to them. Struggling to believe is not the same IMO as what I mentioned. If they are partaking in the covenants with the hope for promises found in Ama 32, than I wouldn't see a problem. Most struggles with beliefs don't constitute a need for altering behavior in participating in ordinances just as most sins don't. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎07‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 5:36 AM, rockpond said:

Perhaps there is a difference between being welcome as a matter of policy and feeling welcome in reality.

Excommunicated members cannot pray, speak, teach, or serve in callings.

You mean like most attendees at most other churches don't?

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they can attend. But that doesn't mean they're welcome.

Why don't you welcome them???

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The notion that gays receiving LDS baptism or other covenants could be "injurious to their salvation" isn't consistent with my understanding of LDS theology.  The statement "injurious to their exaltation"--now that would make sense to me.  Essentially everyone is saved in the LDS scheme of things and receives some measure of glory in whatever kingdom he or she merits.  Mormonism is Universalist regarding salvation.  (Some LDS have even questioned whether Judas Iscariot qualifies as a "son of perdition.")

I know it's a little tangential to the thread, but does someone have a quick explanation how gays could "injure" their "salvation" according to LDS teaching?

--Erik

3 Nephi 18:29

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they can attend. But that doesn't mean they're welcome.

How would you know that??  Have you polygraphed everyone in the church to see if they welcome repentant people?

I am glad my ward welcomes me!!

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I know of one case in which someone was not welcome.  I've told this story here before but it bears repeating.

A couple of years ago, I was in the EQ presidency.  We met Sunday morning and our EQP told me, my neighbor down the street who had come for sacrament in recent weeks, was no longer welcome.  That he was told by the bishop our responsibility as an EQ was to man each door throughout the meeting and let people in, but otherwise the doors would be locked.  If that guy came we were to go straight to the Bishop and tell him he's trying to get in.  Come to find out, the reasoning was that he sat in the back of the Chapel, and tried to record sacrament meeting, was their guess.  I sat by him one of the weeks, and though he was on his phone I saw no reason whatsoever to think he was recording sacrament, so I said so.  I straight up dissented from the outset, said my piece about it and forgot about it, although as I walked the hallways for weeks I'd see guys standing by the doors letting people in as the doors were locked.  We didn't see the guy for a few weeks, then one day, my EQP was driving to Church in between meetings and saw the guy walking towards the Church.  he ran in, and told the bishop the poor guy was coming.  The bishop and his entourage went outside to meet him and told him he's not welcome anymore.  The guy sadly walked off and we haven't seen him attempt to come to Church since.

Anyway, not being welcomed has happened and will probably happen again.  I could imagine some gay people will feel and have felt similarly rejected. 

You do not know what the bishop knew or what he had been instructed to do by the SP. Frankly members seldom know what is "really" going on in these kind of situations.

For all you know he had a gun in the other pocket.  I know of things like that happening.  There was one individual who said he was intending to disrupt sacrament meeting, and he would not have been welcomed had he showed up.  Some thought he might be violent because he was known to be armed almost continually and had military training.  Yet the police could do nothing because he had not yet actually done anything.  He was angry because of a custody issue.

In another case, also a custody issue, a child had been "kidnapped" by his natural father once, but had been returned to the mother.  There were concerns that he would return because he knew the child was always in primary on Sunday.  To top it off, he was from a racial minority in our community.  If anyone had seen him and barred him from attending, people would have had the wrong impression, while the full story could not be told due to privacy issues.

He never showed up, and only two or three knew about it.  He would have been carefully observed had he showed up, I can tell you that, and I am sure he would not have been welcomed.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You mean like most attendees at most other churches don't?

The whole idea that one should allow apostates to teach the Ward is so ridiculous I cannot believe that anyone could possibly object to it.  I really think I should show up at a Catholic church and see if they let me teach about the sacrament and what it is about.   Or better yet teach some lessons from the scriptures about the apostasy.

Yet of course we have our usual suspects who will raise the same kinds of issues again and again.

It just gets tiresome.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You do not know what the bishop knew or what he had been instructed to do by the SP. Frankly members seldom know what is "really" going on in these kind of situations.

For all you know he had a gun in the other pocket.  I know of things like that happening. 

 

It'd be really sad if the Bishop knew he intended to harm church members and kept it a secret from us.  I don't think even my bishop would sink to such depths. 

It'd be really sad, too, if he told us he might try and record sacrament meeting, and we all just went right along with it.  As if that's reason enough to lock doors and keep him away. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It'd be really sad if the Bishop knew he intended to harm church members and kept it a secret from us.  I don't think even my bishop would sink to such depths. 

It'd be really sad, too, if he told us he might try and record sacrament meeting, and we all just went right along with it.  As if that's reason enough to lock doors and keep him away. 

Even your bishop? Wow. I'm impressed by your respect for him.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How would you know that??  Have you polygraphed everyone in the church to see if they welcome repentant people?

I am glad my ward welcomes me!!

The church by policy excludes and is therefore unwelcoming. I'll also note that I said nothing about the people being "repentant". Must a person be repentant before they are welcomed?

[Russell C McGregor]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The whole idea that one should allow apostates to teach the Ward is so ridiculous I cannot believe that anyone could possibly object to it.  I really think I should show up at a Catholic church and see if they let me teach about the sacrament and what it is about.   Or better yet teach some lessons from the scriptures about the apostasy.

Yet of course we have our usual suspects who will raise the same kinds of issues again and again.

It just gets tiresome.

It goes back to that wonderful sense of entitlement. Non-believers are entitled to use our Church facilities to teach against our doctrines. Apostates are entitled to demand that we regard them as more inspired and "enlightened" than the apostles. Pressure groups are entitled to lead the Church.

And if you don't agree that they are thus entitled, there must be something wrong with you.

Get with the program!

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Even your bishop? Wow. I'm impressed by your respect for him.

 

lol I didn't mean it that way. 

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Non-believers are entitled to use our Church facilities to teach against our doctrines.

Where and when have you seen this happen?  

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where and when have you seen this happen?  

That's just it. It doesn't happen, and that appears to upset some people.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It goes back to that wonderful sense of entitlement. Non-believers are entitled to use our Church facilities to teach against our doctrines. Apostates are entitled to demand that we regard them as more inspired and "enlightened" than the apostles. Pressure groups are entitled to lead the Church.

And if you don't agree that they are thus entitled, there must be something wrong with you.

Get with the program!

 

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where and when have you seen this happen?  

 

47 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's just it. It doesn't happen, and that appears to upset some people.

It wasn't an official Church venue, but this happened a few years ago.

We learned that at an upcoming FairMormon Conference, there was to be a panel discussion about how to interact with loved ones who have strayed from the faith.

I drew forth substantial indignation on this message board when I contradicted someone who said the panel ought to include an ex-member of the Church, presumably to lecture conference attendees about how they should behave toward dissidents.

I felt at the time -- and still do -- that such a thing is not what attendees at the conference expect -- or pay money -- to hear.

I think John Williams is still miffed at me over that.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It'd be really sad if the Bishop knew he intended to harm church members and kept it a secret from us.  I don't think even my bishop would sink to such depths. 

It'd be really sad, too, if he told us he might try and record sacrament meeting, and we all just went right along with it.  As if that's reason enough to lock doors and keep him away. 

Yeah right.

Get up on the pulpit and say "We all better watch out for Joe Blow because he has threatened to disrupt sacrament meeting and might have a gun".

Great idea.

This is Christ's church.  I don't think that approach would help Joe Blow get over it and repent- do you?

Bishops should announce every rumor about every person from the pulpit.  Great idea!   I know you are smarter than that- just think it through, ok?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church by policy excludes and is therefore unwelcoming. I'll also note that I said nothing about the people being "repentant". Must a person be repentant before they are welcomed?

Church policy excludes no one.  CFR.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It goes back to that wonderful sense of entitlement. Non-believers are entitled to use our Church facilities to teach against our doctrines. Apostates are entitled to demand that we regard them as more inspired and "enlightened" than the apostles. Pressure groups are entitled to lead the Church.

And if you don't agree that they are thus entitled, there must be something wrong with you.

Get with the program!

That's exactly right.  But if you dare express an opinion which differs with theirs, it is fine to shout you down and ban you from speaking.  In fact it is their moral duty because they alone know the Truth of all things.

Totalitarianism by political correctness-  here we come.  As a former student radical I know it when I see it.   This stuff is straight out of the manual.