Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Zakuska]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Self reflection, critical thinking and attempts at objectivity are key.  Assuming someone is always correct, this is an assumption that many members grant to the brethren, is folly in my opinion.  Why do that when there is so much evidence of past error, and the acknowledgement of fallible humans that are a part of this process.  Makes no sense to me.  

AMEN!

 

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

If a Gay couple had a family and 100 years from now the Millenium hits and we have to do temple work for these people.  What is the church going to do?

Are we going to have to change doctrine and reinstitute Adoption Sealings?

 

If a Lesbian couple went to the sperm bank and had a family.  By definition those children would be bastards.  Dueteronomy says bastards can't Join.  Paul and the NT Church says they can. As well as those who have injured stones.

Nothing is impossible for God.

Repetition of a false idea, does not make it less false. I have never met anyone who constantly misquotes, misinterprets and wrests the scriptures more than you.

[Zakuska]

13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Repetition of a false idea, does not make it less false. I have never met anyone who constantly misquotes, misinterprets and wrests the scriptures more than you.

It's intresting to note that when it comes to Marriage Contracts... Divorce... Familial Relationships... Nothing is Impossible for God. 

Matt 19

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 
answers the Pharisees concerning divorcement 
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 
receives little children 
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
and how to be perfect 
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 
tells his disciples how hard it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God 
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
and promises reward to those that forsake any thing to follow him 
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[rongo]

1 hour ago, busybee said:

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.

Yes, there are. They're called bishops. One of the bishop's duties, as president of the Aaronic priesthood in his ward, is to preside over the sacrament. This includes enforcing restrictions imposed by priesthood keys. Perhaps there are bishops, somewhere, who would say to themselves, if people continue taking the sacrament despite being restricted, "Well, darn. Nothing I can or should do there. It's on them." I don't think there are very many. And I don't know any or of any people who have ever defiantly tested this, really.

 

Quote

There are no conditions which require them not to make any comments during a class.

 

More on this below (with your CFR response).

 

Quote

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

 

As I mentioned, this is something I have always understood, and my stake president's understanding as well. When the member pointed out that the handbook doesn't technically mention participation in class, I told him I would find out from Salt Lake through the stake president. He asked on my behalf, and the answer that came back was "it's up to the bishop." 

Meaning, that it's a draw on this particular CFR, I think. I learned that a bishop may lift these restrictions, if he chooses, but he may also impose them, if he chooses.

Edited December 10, 2015 by rongo

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

It's intresting to note that when it comes to Marriage Contracts... Divorce... Familial Relationships... Nothing is Impossible for God. 

Matt 19

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 
answers the Pharisees concerning divorcement 
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 
receives little children 
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
and how to be perfect 
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 
tells his disciples how hard it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God 
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
and promises reward to those that forsake any thing to follow him 
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Is it possible on this board to ignore a poster?

Asking for a friend...

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Why don't we leave the Judging to God? Let him sort it out.

 

Because His plan and program on earth include judges with priesthood keys. Are you arguing that we should do away with disciplinary councils completely, since "God is the judge, and we shouldn't judge?"

[Zakuska]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because His plan and program on earth include judges with priesthood keys. Are you arguing that we should do away with disciplinary councils completely, since "God is the judge, and we shouldn't judge?"

When it comes to marriage we seal women to more than one husband.  Men to more than one wife.

And why?  What is the reasoning?

The reason I've always been given.... Let God sort it out.

So when it comes time to start sealing these family's together in the future... who we are going to seal all these illegimates born to gay couples too?

Are we also going to exclude children who were gestated by inverto and adopted by hetero couples as well?

I mean it would only be fair.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

 

So when it comes time to start sealing these family's together... in the future who we are going to seal all these illegimates born to gay couples to?

 

Male-female couples. Not male-male or female-female couples. Even when it "all gets sorted out," it's not just going to be an anything goes free-for-all.

Would you draw the line at human-human sealings (when laws end up legally recognizing other forms of legal marriage)? Or would that also fit within God's omnipotence?

[Zakuska]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Male-female couples. Not male-male or female-female couples. Even when it "all gets sorted out," it's not just going to be an anything goes free-for-all.

Would you draw the line at human-human sealings (when laws end up legally recognizing other forms of legal marriage)? Or would that also fit within God's omnipotence?

Your God isn't strong enough to make a "dry tree" bare fruit?

Not My God.  He can do anything he wants too.

[rongo]

Just now, Zakuska said:

Your God isn't strong enough to make a "dry tree" bare fruit?

Not My God.  He can do anything he wants too.

Including human-animal married couples? Can He do that, too?

[Zakuska]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Including human-animal married couples? Can He do that, too?

If he can make rocks sexually reproduce children with Abrahams DNA coursing through their veins. He can do anything.

Matthew 3:9 ... I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

If he can make rocks sexually reproduce children with Abrahams DNA coursing through their veins. He can do anything.

Matthew 3:9 ... I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham

Ooooooookay. 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Your God isn't strong enough to make a "dry tree" bare fruit?

Not My God.  He can do anything he wants too.

Not my God.  My God is a God of eternal law.  And if he were to violate that law he would no longer be God.
That's how he became God.  That's how we will become God.

"Anything goes/anything He wants" is anti-God.

[Zakuska]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not my God.  My God is a God of eternal law.  And if he were to violate that law he would no longer be God.
That's how he became God.  That's how we will become God.

"Anything goes/anything He wants" is anti-God.

Is not our God the great "Law Giver"... tell me... which came first the "Law" or the "Law Giver"?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

On December 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM, stemelbow said:

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. 

I find it completely inappropriate to record people, especially youth, without their knowledge.  If the bishop had talked to him and confirmed in some fashion that this was the man's intent and he wasn't likely to change it, I don't have the least problem with him being banned.  

If the bishop knew that this man was inclined to record meetings and allowed him into meetings because the man promised not to do it, but he went ahead and did it anyway, I wonder if the Church could be held legally responsible.  Anyone know?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Zakuska said:

Is not our God the great "Law Giver"... tell me... which came first the Law or the Law Giver?

The law.  Hands down.

Law Giver does not equal Law Maker.  God dispensed eternal law to us, but it preceded his existence as God.  He followed it to become God.  Breaking it would end his Godhood.

Edited December 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The law.  Hands down.

So you worship the letter of the law that killeth  I worship the great spirit that moved upon the face of the waters. 

Hands down.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it completely inappropriate to record people, especially youth, without their knowledge.  If the bishop had talked to him and confirmed in some fashion that this was the man's intent and he wasn't likely to change it, I don't have the least problem with him being banned.  

If the bishop knew that this man was inclined to record meetings and allowed him into meetings because the man promised not to do it, but he went ahead and did it anyway, I wonder if the Church could be held legally responsible.  Anyone know?

I've recorded several talks that my children gave during sacrament meeting on my tablet.  God didn't strike me down so their can be no sin in it.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[rongo]

You worship the God of the creeds, Zak. Creatio ex nihilo, can do anything, absolutely anything He wants. 

You can insist that you believe in a stronger, bigger God than we do (where have we heard that claim before?), but He exists only in your head.

What happened to you over the years, Zakuska? You seem to have undergone a big sea change.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm LDS, have been all my life.  I agree that God speaks to men and women throughout history and today.  

I wondered, because your flowery soliloquy about "the unknowable God" seemed to be somewhat at odds with LDS belief. In fact, it came across to me as rather Protestant in tone.

Here is what Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse about the necessity to come to know the true character of God. Please note in particular the portions I have emphasized with boldface type:

 

Quote

 

The Character of God

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning—to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Eloheim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of the world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God and His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with Him? This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question—What kind of being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen Him, heard Him, or communed with Him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The scriptures inform us that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.)

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might just as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not be the sufferer?

 

 

Quote

 

I just don't see any evidence that this communication is done in clear and unmistakable ways.  If God speaks to mortals, and I believe he does, then how does that process work, is it clear and unmistakable?  No, there isn't any evidence of that, and I'm not aware of present or past church leaders who proclaim such clear communication.  

 

You say you've been LDS all your life, and yet you fail to understand the process by which revelation occurs. Oh my! Let me help you with that.

Please  see this page, ponder the text I have excerpted below, and examine the links on that page.

 

Quote

 

Revelation is communication from God to His children. This guidance comes through various channels according to the needs and circumstances of individuals, families, and the Church as a whole. When the Lord reveals His will to the Church, He speaks through His prophet. Prophets are the only people who can receive revelation for the Church, but they are not the only people who can receive revelation. According to our faithfulness, we can receive revelation to help us with our specific personal needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony.

Additional Information

The scriptures tell of different types of revelation, such as visions, dreams, and visitations by angels. Through such channels, the Lord has restored His gospel in the latter days and revealed many truths. However, most revelations to leaders and members of the Church come through the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.

Quiet spiritual promptings may not seem as spectacular as visions or angelic visitations, but they are just as powerful and lasting and life changing. The witness of the Holy Ghost makes an impression on the soul that is more significant than anything we can see or hear. Through such revelations, we will receive lasting strength to stay true to the gospel and help others do the same.

 

 

Quote

Do church leaders get things 100% wrong some times, make mistakes, errors in doctrine?  Yes, we have a multitude of evidence throughout scripture and latter day Mormon history to show that.  Why are you so confident then, that this policy accurately represents God's will and mind?  Can you eliminate the possibility of it being erroneous?  

Though individual Church members and even leaders have sometimes expressed personal opinions that turned out to be wrong, I have never known the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a body in the authority of their callings to do so.

And yes, based on my faith in God and His apostles and Prophets, and based on the consistency with which the policy conforms to doctrine and principle given in the past, I can eliminate in my own mind the possibility of it being erroneous.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I've recorded several talks that my children gave during sacrament meeting.  God didn't strike me down so their can be no sin in it.

Seriously, you think there is no sin if God doesn't kill someone?

There is a huge difference between a parent recording a child and someone not related recording someone without their awareness.  The government has nothing to say in the first (as long as it doesn't involve criminalry acts); it has something to say about the second in many cases.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 7:48 AM, Bob Crockett said:

Everyone is welcome. 

 

I think "everyone" may not feel "welcome" what with the new changes to the Church Handbook.  

Edited December 10, 2015 by consiglieri

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

I can provide proof that that was the original intent. However, such proof does not work over the internet.

I can fly, but I just can't show anyone my powers, they don't work when people are looking.  :-)

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it completely inappropriate to record people, especially youth, without their knowledge.  If the bishop had talked to him and confirmed in some fashion that this was the man's intent and he wasn't likely to change it, I don't have the least problem with him being banned.  

If the bishop knew that this man was inclined to record meetings and allowed him into meetings because the man promised not to do it, but he went ahead and did it anyway, I wonder if the Church could be held legally responsible.  Anyone know?

Any person pursuing legal action because they were recorded at Church would seem pretty petty.  I'd think the Bishop would be better served to work with the person who is pursuing legal action then worry about someone recording a sacrament. 

The problem is, though, he didn't record sacrament and did not intend to. 

[Steve-o]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

Calling this anti-Mormon propaganda, nefarious, calumnious, and false is hyperbole at its best. I don't understand this position.

I have no way of knowing the original intent of the policy but I can easily see that the written policy does not match the clarification. In fact, it still doesn't. I don't think the actual policy wording has changed at all. Anyways I struggle being told that the clearly written policy doesn't say what it says. It's there to read. If anyone is to blame for misunderstanding the policy it is the church for writing a policy that apparently bears little resemblance to the original intent. But that doesn't make me or anyone else anti-Mormon.