Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Zakuska]

I wonder how much "Preasure" Emma had to exert to get Joseph to come up with the WOW?

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

I didn't suggest any such thing.  But this is all silliness because there was no physical threat offered.  There was no gun.  Remember I actually know this person and you do not.  You just threw out some nonsense because you didn't like the report I gave.  It happened.  No, the Bishop, if anything, knew less than me.  Yes, it would be utterly stupid for the Bishop to tell us to keep him out because he had a feeling he might record sacrament meeting if he was aware the guy had intentions with a gun.  It's not like the glass doors are bullet proof.  And it'd be sad to think any members went along with the shutting him out because of the Bishop's hunch.  But members did it.  I witnessed it.  It's all behind us now. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

 

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Church policy excludes no one.  CFR.

Ah, but you have to grasp the vocabulary, mfbukowski. By "inclusion" they mean unconditional privilege and power.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Ah, but you have to grasp the vocabulary, mfbukowski. By "inclusion" they mean unconditional privilege and power.

 

So for you inclusion means "Come to church even though we have excommunicated you, you cannot speak, pray or participate in any meaningful way..and oh by they way your kids cannot be members till 18 and then they have to denounce your lifestyle... but hey we still are happy to let you sit in the pews...'

 

Got it.    ;-)

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

So for you inclusion means "Come to church even though we have excommunicated you, you cannot speak, pray or participate in any meaningful way..and oh by they way your kids cannot be members till 18 and then they have to denounce your lifestyle... but hey we still are happy to let you sit in the pews...'

 

Got it.    ;-)

In response to this, I can hardly improve on what Elder Christofferson said:

Quote

We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

So we invite all to come and worship with us and learn with us right from wrong, what constitutes sin, what brings lasting happiness and what does not.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So for you inclusion means "Come to church even though we have excommunicated you, you cannot speak, pray or participate in any meaningful way..and oh by they way your kids cannot be members till 18 and then they have to denounce your lifestyle... but hey we still are happy to let you sit in the pews...'

Got it.    ;-)

You bet... Their "alms and offerings" will be accepted faster than you can say "I'll buy that for a dollar" as well.  Of course paying their dues wont allow them into the temple either.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[Five Solas]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

Interesting rationale for exclusion of gays when LDS don't believe that anyone is really damned to Hell (maybe they get mere Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom glory--but certainly not damnation no matter what they do and/or fail to do).  But no doubt this merits its own thread, should time permit. 

Appreciate the response, RevTestament

--Erik

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Interesting rationale for exclusion of gays when LDS don't believe that anyone is really damned to Hell (maybe they get mere Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom glory--but certainly not damnation no matter what they do and/or fail to do).  But no doubt this merits its own thread, should time permit. 

Appreciate the response, RevTestament

--Erik

I don't believe that. I believe there are those who are not saved. I do not equate resurrection with salvation. I also believe that spirit prison is basically a hell parole period, where some are paying their punishment. Although, ultimately most will be saved to at least the telestial kingdom, that doesn't mean they receive no punishment for their sins before then.

[Rain]

14 hours ago, Zakuska said:

You bet... Their "alms and offerings" will be accepted faster than you can say "I'll buy that for a dollar" as well.  Of course paying their dues wont allow them into the temple either.

My understanding is that once excommunicated you can no longer pay them.  I remember a lengthy discussion about this when Kate Kelly was excommunicated and her not being allowed to pay. 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Rain
autocorrect typo

[Zakuska]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

My understanding is that once excommunicated you can no longer part them.  I remember a lengthy discussion about this when Kate Kelly was excommunicated and her not being allowed to pay. 

You are correct. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council

This is interesting...  if the Prophet of the church is always right no matter what (a least according to some people I've spoken with as of late.

Why is there an "Impeachment Trial" process in place?

Quote

Common Council of the Church

 If the need arises to convene a disciplinary council for the President of the Church or one of his counselors in the First Presidency, the Common Council of the Church must be convened by the church's presiding bishop.[4] The Common Council is made up of the presiding bishop and his counselors and twelve other high priests selected by the presiding bishop.[5] The Common Council has only been convened twice: In August 1838, after the return of Zion's Camp, the Council formally convened for the first time to consider charges made by Sylvester Smith againstJoseph Smith, who was eventually cleared. In September 1844, Presiding Bishop Newel K. Whitney convened a Common Council which excommunicated Sidney Rigdon, who was the senior surviving member of the First Presidency after the death of Joseph Smith.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

12 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. 

 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

 

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't suggest any such thing.  But this is all silliness because there was no physical threat offered.  There was no gun.  Remember I actually know this person and you do not.  You just threw out some nonsense because you didn't like the report I gave.  It happened.  No, the Bishop, if anything, knew less than me.  Yes, it would be utterly stupid for the Bishop to tell us to keep him out because he had a feeling he might record sacrament meeting if he was aware the guy had intentions with a gun.  It's not like the glass doors are bullet proof.  And it'd be sad to think any members went along with the shutting him out because of the Bishop's hunch.  But members did it.  I witnessed it.  It's all behind us now. 

 

You didn't suggest such a thing??

What is this?

"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"

And yes there was a physical threat- though unrealized.  You switched the story of "no threat" to your story while my comment was MY story.  

I can't make head or tails of what your story is, but it appears that because your bishop spilled the beans the "members did it" and shut him out. Clearly that was the wrong decision even if "it's all behind you now".

It was a tough decision for me when there was a rumored possibility of a gun, but I elected not to "spill the beans" over a rumor, and therefore according to you "sunk to the depths"  and that was clearly the best decision in retrospect.  The false rumor proved to be just that, and though the member has not come back yet, he has visited the ward and come to activities and knows he is welcome to return any time.

[busybee]

On 12/7/2015 at 9:00 PM, rongo said:

I'm not sure about this. Granted, this was from the mid 1990s, but our branch president on my mission forbade a crazy investigator from setting foot inside the church. He was propositioning multiple sisters (he believed that he was Jesus reincarnated and that women could not resist him --- and that he needed to oblige). After talking suggestively to his 2nd counselor's wife, he was told he could not enter. The police station was across the street from the church, and he tried to file a complaint upon being barred. The police ignored him. 

I think the whether the FP would be upset about local leaders acting on their own initiative would be on a case-by-case basis, and would depend on the circumstances. 

As far as the specific question of this thread, I think that the behavior of the overwhelming majority (really overwhelming) of gay people attending church wouldn't necessitate any "barring," and they would be more than welcome. The standard for anyone --- including those formally disciplined --- is "as long as their behavior is orderly." Interestingly, this has come up recently in my ward because a disciplined member strongly feels that he should be able to comment in class, and he pointed out that the handbook doesn't specifically say that ex'd/dis'd members can't participate in class. Both the stake president and I were surprised to find that it doesn't specifically say that they can't, and we told him that we would ask Salt Lake for clarification. 

Salt Lake got back, and the clarification was . . . whatever your bishop tells you.

Would non-members be welcome to comment in class?? There is your answer. An ex'd member is a non-member. If the comments are derogatory or contentious then the Bishop may have to have a word.

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

You didn't suggest such a thing??

What is this?

"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"

And yes there was a physical threat- though unrealized.  You switched the story of "no threat" to your story while my comment was MY story.  

I can't make head or tails of what your story is, but it appears that because your bishop spilled the beans the "members did it" and shut him out. Clearly that was the wrong decision even if "it's all behind you now".

It was a tough decision for me when there was a rumored possibility of a gun, but I elected not to "spill the beans" over a rumor, and therefore according to you "sunk to the depths"  and that was clearly the best decision in retrospect.  The false rumor proved to be just that, and though the member has not come back yet, he has visited the ward and come to activities and knows he is welcome to return any time.

Well misunderstanding then.  It seemed to me you were suggesting by me not knowing what the Bishop knew, there could have been a gun.  There was not.  That's all I was trying to say.  Your story is very likely different.  I feel like what happened in my area was a very unfortunate incident that demonstrates how people can be unfairly treated and vigorously unjustifiably unwelcome.  it has happened and will happen again. 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Ah, but you have to grasp the vocabulary, mfbukowski. By "inclusion" they mean unconditional privilege and power.

No. By inclusion I mean that a population isn't purposefully excluded by policy. As for MF's CFR; please read the policy. By refusing to allow children of SSM people to become members of the church through baptism or even have a record created via baby blessing, those people are excluded from the church. They do not have the liberty to choose to participate as members. This is exclusion.

And Scott, you get this wrong. I don't know how children wield unconditional privilege and power by being baptized or blessed but nonetheless, they are excluded so you don't need to worry about it.

[HappyJackWagon]

And in case anyone is confused by what it means to exclude a person or group. Here's a simple definition.

 

Quote

ex-clude

[ik sklood]

VERB

1. deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a  place, group, or privilege:

 "women had been excluded from many scientific societies"

 Synonyms: Keep out - deny access to

Please explain how children of SSM are not being excluded from the church.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In response to this, I can hardly improve on what Elder Christofferson said:

So we invite all to come and worship with us and learn with us right from wrong, what constitutes sin, what brings lasting happiness and what does not.

 

The problem with Elder Christofferson's statement, and this is evident in other positions the church holds as well, is an underlying assumption that church leaders know exactly the mind and will of God as it pertains to this subject.  

Lets just assume that he's correct when he stated "He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind."  It strikes me as arrogant and prideful to believe that we are so sure what the mind and will of God is on this or any other subject.  It defy's my understanding of scripture, and it is antithetical to principle of humility that seems like such a good and important principle to foster.  

How can the church claim, especially without specific revelation in the canon, exactly what God's will is on the subject of treatment of LGBT members?  Really, I want to see the revelation, and then I want a chance to accept it by common consent.  That is step one in my mind.

Step two is even more important.  When has revelation in English, ever expressed the exact will of God word for word?  When has culture, interpretation, and human fallibility ever been eliminated from the revelatory process?  

I believe there is always a need for humility in these matters.  To hold such a rigid position assuming that we're aligned with God can lead to downfall and ruin.  The church needs a good dose of humility on this and many other matters.  

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

So for you inclusion means "Come to church even though we have excommunicated you, you cannot speak, pray or participate in any meaningful way..and oh by they way your kids cannot be members till 18 and then they have to denounce your lifestyle... but hey we still are happy to let you sit in the pews...'

Got it.    ;-)

I think the Lord expressed the same principle in more loving terms than you did (see 3 Nephi 18):

  28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

  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.

  30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

  31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

  32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

  33 Therefore, keep these sayings which I have commanded you that ye come not under condemnation; for wo unto him whom the Father condemneth.

  34 And I give you these commandments because of the disputations which have been among you. And blessed are ye if ye have no disputations among

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please explain how children of SSM are not being excluded from the church.

They may attend and participate as non-members: they may receive the ordinances at the appropriate time and under the appropriate conditions.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They may attend and participate as non-members: they may receive the ordinances at the appropriate time and under the appropriate conditions.

You're trying to spin it. By definition they are excluded from membership.

Sure, they're told they may apply later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that they are being excluded at the present. We can argue about whether or not exclusion is good or bad, but I don't see how there is any argument that exclusion is not systematically occurring as a matter of policy. It may sound harsh to say we're excluding children, but that's because it IS harsh.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. By inclusion I mean that a population isn't purposefully excluded by policy. As for MF's CFR; please read the policy. By refusing to allow children of SSM people to become members of the church through baptism or even have a record created via baby blessing, those people are excluded from the church. They do not have the liberty to choose to participate as members. This is exclusion.

And Scott, you get this wrong. I don't know how children wield unconditional privilege and power by being baptized or blessed but nonetheless, they are excluded so you don't need to worry about it.

It seems that most LDS (including the Fifteen) would like this policy to be received a certain way, would like the message of the policy to be one of compassion and commitment to religious principles.  But the policy itself doesn't warrant such a reception.  And many LGBT LDS and their allies/loved ones aren't receiving it the way that most LDS want them to.

So what to do... you can't force someone to receive your message that way you want them to receive it.  So is there a solution?  Or is the final answer just to let this pull apart the church?

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're trying to spin it. By definition they are excluded from membership.

Sure, they're told they may apply later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that they are being excluded at the present. We can argue about whether or not exclusion is good or bad, but I don't see how there is any argument that exclusion is not systematically occurring as a matter of policy. It may sound harsh to say we're excluding children, but that's because it IS harsh.

It is hard, to be sure.

The essential point of this thread was to examine the restrictive nature of the policy's function.  Is it something that effectively means we should not mingle with gays or their children?  Does it reinforce any notion that families should break up from any gay family members?  Does it, in effect, continue the behavior of some to cast out and shun GLBT individuals from their lives?

The answer is a firm, No, No, and No. 

That message in this OP to GLBT and anyone opposing the policy, and to family of GLBT individuals whether they support or oppose them, and to all member,s is that GLBT individuals should be welcomed among us, in our lives and at church.  Being GLBT gives us no excuse to shun or cast them away. Church is a hospital where all are invited to enter.  We are called to love and minister to all God's children.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It seems that most LDS (including the Fifteen) would like this policy to be received a certain way, would like the message of the policy to be one of compassion and commitment to religious principles.  But the policy itself doesn't warrant such a reception.  And many LGBT LDS and their allies/loved ones aren't receiving it the way that most LDS want them to.

So what to do... you can't force someone to receive your message that way you want them to receive it.  So is there a solution?  Or is the final answer just to let this pull apart the church?

I see this as a potential healing opportunity.  Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the church repented of this policy?  If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was wrong, and then reversed course completely.  How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking our LGBT for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do love them and they aren't apostate, and that they are welcome at church.  The church could still exclude them from Temple sealings if they don't want to cross that line, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity.  

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're trying to spin it. By definition they are excluded from membership.

Sure, they're told they may apply later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that they are being excluded at the present. We can argue about whether or not exclusion is good or bad, but I don't see how there is any argument that exclusion is not systematically occurring as a matter of policy. It may sound harsh to say we're excluding children, but that's because it IS harsh.

But you specifically asked for an explanation of "how children of SSM are not being excluded from the church." That is how. I'm sure you can see it both ways; did you ask for an explanation expecting none, or are you spinning one interpretation as the "only" interpretation?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I see this as a potential healing opportunity.  Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the church repented of this policy?  If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was wrong, and then reversed course completely.  How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking our LGBT for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do love them and they aren't apostate, and that they are welcome at church.  The church could still exclude them from Temple sealings if they don't want to cross that line, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity.  

Yes... it would be amazing.  And would make headlines all over the world.

[Jeanne]

I would love to see such humility in the church to do this.  Just to admit a mistake would give me and others a huge shout out of respect, love and as a sort repentance by the leaders that promote these qualities.,