Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Russell C McGregor]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The policy being discussed right here on this thread lends quite enough credence for me.

What, the fact that the policy doesn't have 100% support from all across the political spectrum is proof that it's not inspired?

Is that really what you intended to say?

[CV75]

I think it reasonable to assume that the parents of the children in 3 Nephi 17 were not in same-sex marriages:

   11 And it came to pass that he commanded that their little children should be brought.

   12 So they brought their little children and set them down upon the ground round about him, and Jesus stood in the midst; and the multitude gave way till they had all been brought unto him.

  13 And it came to pass that when they had all been brought, and Jesus stood in the midst, he commanded the multitude that they should kneel down upon the ground.

  14 And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.

  15 And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.

  16 And after this manner do they bear record: The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father;

  17 And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.

  18 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying unto the Father, he arose; but so great was the joy of the multitude that they were overcome.

  19 And it came to pass that Jesus spake unto them, and bade them arise.

  20 And they arose from the earth, and he said unto them: Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full.

  21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.

  22 And when he had done this he wept again;

  23 And he spake unto the multitude, and said unto them: Behold your little ones.

  24 And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

  25 And the multitude did see and hear and bear record; and they know that their record is true for they all of them did see and hear, every man for himself; and they were in number about two thousand and five hundred souls; and they did consist of men, women, and children.

[Teancum]

19 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.

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.

I appreciate Elder Christofferson. I really do.  But it I think what he says could be accomplished without the draconian policy the church has put in place. They seemed to be managing this quite well.  Personally I am convinced that they leaders did this more for legal issues as well as the worry that if they did not take a harder line members would continue to accept and tolerate gay marriage.  This sends a clear message.  

But to be gay and be an active LDS member or to continue to participate even you are kicked out because you choose to enter a SSM, well, it would be an almost impossible situation to navigate.  Gay LDS have two choices really. Stay active and remain celibate for life (and don't even have a non sexual romance with someone of the same sex) or leave the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

An 8 year old who lives in a family of same sex marriage understands exactly the ramifications of same sex marriage and yet cannot wait to be baptized into a church which will condemn the practices of his parents, and you call that "exclusion"???

That's kind of like excluding 8 year olds from buying assault rifles. Both would be recipes for disaster.  If that is exclusion, I am all for it.

Absolutely I call it exclusion. I even supplied the definition of "exclude" for those who are confused about what that word means. It fits perfectly.

The claim that any 8 year old "understands exactly" is a huge stretch. Your entire argument is based upon the assumptions that SSM couples wouldn't want their child baptized and would therefore offer no support, that the child would have no desire to be baptized in the first place, not to mention the assumed non-role of any extended, active family.

Like I said before, we can argue about whether an exclusion is good or not (like an 8 year old buying assault rifles) but it's foolishness to argue that an exclusion doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you find the church to be as dangerous to a SSM child as an assault rifle. Nice hyperbole.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree. I think it is evidence they are being divinely directed and inspired. 

As an aside, neither you or I will live to see the day where this policy will be overturned. You can bank on that.

Speak for yourself... I don't plan on dying that soon.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From my perspective, the Church leaders do indeed purport to know the mind and will of God as it pertains to this subject, and they've had that knowledge for many years. You can insist that  they don't if you like, but all that does is make you an unbeliever. It doesn't negate their knowledge or make Elder Christofferson's statement problematical.

Also, as I've pointed out on past occasions, revealed knowledge does not have to be written down and canonized to be revealed knowledge. That said, the doctrines and principles pertaining to this subject were set down years ago in the family proclamation, which, even then, was not declaring new doctrine, but rather, reaffirming and reemphasizing truth that had long been had among the Latter-day Saints. Again, it is society, not the Church, that has drifted off the rails on this matter. See my sig line.

 

How can humans comprehend God, this is a question for the ages, and there are so many scriptures that express how difficult it is understand God's mind and will.  Understanding the limitations we have is so important.  Unfortunately, on this issue and many others, our leaders seem to forget about all the scriptures that talk about our limitations.  Instead they bold proclaim that they know exactly the mind and will of God on this issue, down to the nitty gritty details.  The two positions seem in tension to me.  How can God's mind be ineffable on one hand, and on the other hand we know exactly how God would want us to discriminate with respect to LGBT members.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said Elder Christofferson's statement is problematical. Yours notion is problematical for a comparable reason to the one you gave for saying Elder Christofferson's was probematical. You're assuming they have not already received revelation relative to this handbook revision. I submit that you cannot know such a thing.

Where is the evidence for revelation?  I haven't heard any?  Even on the proclamation, the church backtracked on Elder Packer calling it revelation.  Assuming it is revelation, is there any reason that a future revelation tomorrow can't trump revelation received in the past?  You could make the argument that it has on multiple issues: priesthood ban, polygamy, Adam God, etc.  Future revelation can always amend or reverse past revelation, isn't that the point?  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Or, you could just look at it literally instead of drawing imperfect analogies.

GLBT are welcome to come to Church. What can they do?  They can listen to the message and socialize with others there.  While they are restricted from ordinances and other things, the first still stands.

You have every right to interpret that how you like or have your own feelings about it.  Yet, the policy clearly does not allow or call for any of the following:

1. Ceasing to mingle with gays or their children. 

2. Families breaking up from any gay family members. 

3. Casting out and shunning GLBT individuals from their lives.

All other policies and counsel regarding apostates applies.  They are still to be welcomed in our midst.

The world is getting more complex, not simpler.  If we are to grow, we have to learn to deal with more complexity, and that includes being able to move past clannishness and partisanship, including religious clannishness and partisanship.  There should be no us v them in the Church.  There should not be a valuing of others based on Church standing or lack of.  God is asking more of us.

I find it funny that you suggest apostates are "welcomed in our midst." You must be living in a different church than I am.

The church I grew up in and currently live in separates the apostate for the safety of the congregation, hence one of the reasons for excommunication. It is a form of shunning that warns others to be wary of the apostate so they are not also dragged down to hell.

I agree that there shouldn't be an us VS them in the church but it's hard to see the church living up to that ideal. I don't see it in my life.

The fact remains that LGBT SSM are designated apostates which carries a social stigma within the church. They are officially removed from membership of the church. Their children are not permitted to officially be associated with the church in any way (hence no baby blessing, baptism or priesthood). All of those things are forms of shunning and signal a level of 2nd class citizenry IF these LGBT people look past all of the exclusion and still choose to participate on a limited basis.

[Russell C McGregor]

Just now, rockpond said:

Speak for yourself... I don't plan on dying that soon.

There's something you are missing. Something rather obvious.

As other commentators have pointed out, the Church has taken a "Benedict option" regarding SSM. That is, the Church has defined SSM as being a wicked practice of a wicked world, and something that is outside the parameters of a Gospel-centred life. Therefore, whether you like it or not, the fact that we don't have anything to do with same sex marriages has become part of our identity.

And I rather suspect that, as time goes on, it will simply be "one of those things." Mormons don't drink. Mormons don't smoke. Mormons don't do SSM.

Part of our identity. It's who we are.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How can humans comprehend God, this is a question for the ages, and there are so many scriptures that express how difficult it is understand God's mind and will.  Understanding the limitations we have is so important.  Unfortunately, on this issue and many others, our leaders seem to forget about all the scriptures that talk about our limitations.  Instead they bold proclaim that they know exactly the mind and will of God on this issue, down to the nitty gritty details.  The two positions seem in tension to me.  How can God's mind be ineffable on one hand, and on the other hand we know exactly how God would want us to discriminate with respect to LGBT members.  

I don't know what your religious background is, but apparently you reject the LDS belief that God speaks to mortal men and women through His authorized servants. I can't do much about that, other than disagree.

[Mystery Meat]

51 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Thats what the Saducess, Pharasees and Scribes all said about the Law of Moses. Look where that got them...

If you feel comfortable comparing the Lord's anointed to the groups of people the Lord himself criticized most, more power to you.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

There's something you are missing. Something rather obvious.

As other commentators have pointed out, the Church has taken a "Benedict option" regarding SSM. That is, the Church has defined SSM as being a wicked practice of a wicked world, and something that is outside the parameters of a Gospel-centred life. Therefore, whether you like it or not, the fact that we don't have anything to do with same sex marriages has become part of our identity.

And I rather suspect that, as time goes on, it will simply be "one of those things." Mormons don't drink. Mormons don't smoke. Mormons don't do SSM.

Part of our identity. It's who we are.

 

That's funny.  Other things that were also part of our identity include the practice of polygamy and not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood or be sealed in the temple.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If you feel comfortable comparing the Lord's anointed to the groups of people the Lord himself criticized most, more power to you.

Or more appropriately, he should repent of it for his own good.

 

[Mystery Meat]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Speak for yourself... I don't plan on dying that soon.

I am not even thirty, and I plan on living to 100.

ETA: the statement wasn't meant be cute, it was meant to be an accurate reflection of the direction the Church is going.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I am not even thirty, and I plan on living to 100.

ETA: the statement wasn't meant be cute, it was meant to be an accurate reflection of the direction the Church is going.

Given the revision history of the Handbook and the fact that this policy had to be revised once already (Nov 13 FP letter), I think the odds are that it won't still be the same 70 years from now.

[Teancum]

4 hours 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.

In other words fairly excluded. So a kid of a SSM couple can come to church and go to any meeting but not be baptized and receive other ordinances.  The justification for banning them from ordinances is we don't want to conflict the children.  How will the be any less conflicted if the come but cannot fully participate?

[Zakuska]

24 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If you feel comfortable comparing the Lord's anointed to the groups of people the Lord himself criticized most, more power to you.

There was no one who the Lord criticized more than Peter his anointed Rock. Just because they are "anointed" doesn't mean they are the Lord encarnate and can never make mistakes. Tell me... was Peter right or wrong in taking the gospel to the filthy unwashed gentiles?

Why we continue to pronounce gay people "unclean" in the eyes of the Lord is beyond me.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[busybee]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It isn't that simple. Excommunicated and disfellowshipped members have restrictions that non-members don't. For example, we don't slap any non-member's hand if they take the sacrament (ideally, they will have been taught the meaning of it beforehand, and won't take it because they haven't made covenants to renew). But, disfellowshipped and excommunicated members may not take the sacrament. It is more complicated than simply regarding excommunicated members as non-members. There is a big difference.

In the case of the member I referenced, he has argued that he should be able to take the sacrament and continue to be a home teacher, even though he has been disfellowshipped. Arguing that he should be able to comment in class is a continuation of these negotiations to participate as much as possible.

I doubt anyone would slap the hand of anyone who takes the Sacrament. Ex'd and disfellowshipped members should know that they are precluded from doing so, and the reasons for this preclusion. However, should they decided they were going to go ahead and take the Sacrament emblems any way, it will be on their heads. No-one is policing them. There are no excommunication police making sure that members who have gone through formal discipline are keeping to the conditions imposed upon them.

 There are no conditions which require them not to make any comments during a class. They cannot be asked to offer prayers but other than that, they are as free to participate in a lesson as anyone else. The member you mentioned can protest all he wants,  he can take the Sacrament against the conditions imposed on him if he so chooses. He cannot control his HT assignment, so that is out of his hands. He is free to participate in discussions in classes as long as he is not preaching apostasy or causing contention.

If you contend that ex'd and disfellowshipped members are precluded from participating in classes I shall have to CFR please.

Edited December 10, 2015 by busybee

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's funny.  Other things that were also part of our identity include the practice of polygamy and not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood or be sealed in the temple.

 

Polygamy, I'll grant you. But not ordaining blacks was never part of our identity.

Anti-Mormons may try to claim that, of course. But we know better.

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.,

 

 

The LDS Church does not apologize nor does it ever admit a mistake.

[Zakuska]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Polygamy, I'll grant you. But not ordaining blacks was never part of our identity.

Anti-Mormons may try to claim that, of course. But we know better.

 

Tell that to Joseph Smiths Black maid ( Jane Elizabeth Manning James ) who was denied temple blessing for years and all because of her skin color.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

And kill the Church.

 

 

Oh hardly. Confession and repentance is supposedly good for the soul.  Why is the corporate LDS Church beyond this.  You defenders keep saying the leadership are simply fallible humans.  Why are they above owning up to bad things they have done or taught?

[Zakuska]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh hardly. Confession and repentance is supposedly good for the soul.  Why is the corporate LDS Church beyond this.  You defenders keep saying the leadership are simply fallible humans.  Why are they above owning up to bad things they have done or taught?

Because they are Super Heros... and everyone knows Super-Heros can do no wrong. They're the untouchables.

Leadership worship is alive and well in the church today.  Makes you wonder why our first prophet, Joseph Smith himself faced impeachment proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Council_of_the_Church#Trial_of_Joseph_Smith

I wonder which leaders we are supposed to put on the pedastool of infallibility when stuff like this happens.

What good are impeachment procedures in our own Doctrines & Covenants if we are never allowed to use them for fear of speaking evilly of our "anointed" dear leaders?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

3 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Tell that to Joseph Smiths Black maid ( Jane Elizabeth Manning James ) who was denied temple blessing for years and all because of her skin color.

 

You're talking past me, Zak.

I didn't deny that there was ever a Priesthood ban. I said that it wasn't part of our identity.

And it wasn't. We all expected the ban to be lifted at some time, for the very good and sufficient reason that the prophets had said that it would be.

[Russell C McGregor]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given the revision history of the Handbook and the fact that this policy had to be revised once already (Nov 13 FP letter), I think the odds are that it won't still be the same 70 years from now.

The claim that the November 13 letter "revised" the policy is anti-Mormon propaganda, and is false.

The letter clarified the policy by explaining its original intent and scope.

Put another way: the claim that the original intent and scope of the policy was anything other than that set out in the November 13 letter is nefarious, calumnious, and false.