Russell C McGregor Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 52 minutes ago, california boy said: Of course I remember our early conversation. That is why I asked the question and pointed out to you that I already are well aware that the church leaders feel that me having a relationship with my partner is wrong. And that is why I asked you the question. Would you still feel the need to tell me that having a relationship with my partner is wrong when you are fully aware that I already am quite aware how the church feels? Do you feel the need to tell everyone you come in contact with that they should correct their sins if you are aware of their sins? I know a lot of people that have sins. I have never felt it was my responsibility to tell them to quit sinning especially when I knew they were fully aware that what they were doing was against God's will. I am not trying to give you a bad time. I feel you are a good person. Like I said, I am just a bit curious how this all works out for you. Perhaps it's only necessary to do it often enough to remove the expectation that the Church is about to abandon its moral standards. I say that because a lot of the angst over the recent policy changes seems to have arisen because there were some expectations of that nature out there. (The Catholic Church got some blowback too, and for similar reasons.) It's probably overall a good thing to let people know where we stand -- and that we do stand. Apart from that, though, I see no value in constantly reminding people that they are Sinnahs! Because, when all is said and done, that's true of all of us anyway. And I don't remember Jesus telling us to be hyper-vigilant about our neighbours' sins. 1
california boy Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 55 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Perhaps it's only necessary to do it often enough to remove the expectation that the Church is about to abandon its moral standards. I say that because a lot of the angst over the recent policy changes seems to have arisen because there were some expectations of that nature out there. (The Catholic Church got some blowback too, and for similar reasons.) It's probably overall a good thing to let people know where we stand -- and that we do stand. Apart from that, though, I see no value in constantly reminding people that they are Sinnahs! Because, when all is said and done, that's true of all of us anyway. And I don't remember Jesus telling us to be hyper-vigilant about our neighbours' sins. Wait. You think there will be an expectation that the church will abandon it's moral standards if Ahab doesn't point out my sins to me on a regular basis???? Really?? You as well as church leaders have made it pretty clear that there is no place for me in the church without me dumping my partner who I love and enjoy a very wonderful life with. I don't think there has been any fuzzy areas on that even before the new policy.
Ahab Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 4 hours ago, california boy said: Of course I remember our early conversation. That is why I asked the question and pointed out to you that I already are well aware that the church leaders feel that me having a relationship with my partner is wrong. And that is why I asked you the question. Would you still feel the need to tell me that having a relationship with my partner is wrong when you are fully aware that I already am quite aware how the church feels? Do you feel the need to tell everyone you come in contact with that they should correct their sins if you are aware of their sins? I know a lot of people that have sins. I have never felt it was my responsibility to tell them to quit sinning especially when I knew they were fully aware that what they were doing was against God's will. I am not trying to give you a bad time. I feel you are a good person. Like I said, I am just a bit curious how this all works out for you. I don't mind repeating what I have told someone before, particularly when I think I may not have been clear about something before, so pretty much the only time I will not share what I think of as helpful tidbits with others is when they ask me not to talk about it anymore with them. Or in some cases like Daniel2 mentioned when It is against the rules at school or at a place of employment. All I intend to do is help but if people ask me not to help them I leave it between them and God.
Guest Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 15 hours ago, Ahab said: What I have in mind is the idea that when people love others and know the others they love are doing things they should not be doing, then they should say something to point out what they should not be doing. We are all brothers and sisters here and as brothers and sisters I feel we have that duty out of the love and concern we should have for each other. And it doesn't always have to be a long conversation, either. Just a little "you shouldn't do that!" should be enough to get their attention, and with enough people saying that to them they'll eventually get the message that at least maybe they shouldn't do that after all. In your example you know gay refers to a male with homosexual tendencies, don't you? So you're asking what would I do if you were a gay man holding hands with a woman, your wife, in a grocery store and you asked me for the location of milk? If I knew where it was I'd probably just point to the general location of the dair y section in that store, maybe not even realizing that you had homosexual tendencies. I actually used "gay" because that is one way I've recently heard a homosexual woman describe herself. Replace it with "lesbian" if that helps you. Now can you answer the question?
Meadowchik Posted February 9, 2016 Author Posted February 9, 2016 Ahab, the above "guest" post is from me.
Ahab Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 6 hours ago, Guest said: I actually used "gay" because that is one way I've recently heard a homosexual woman describe herself. Replace it with "lesbian" if that helps you. Now can you answer the question? Pretty much the same answer in regards to telling you the general location of the milk and if I picked up on the fact that you were a practicing lesbian I'd also say something about how you shouldn't be doing that. I would then leave it up to you to decide whether you wanted to turn that into a discussion.
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted February 9, 2016 Author Popular Post Posted February 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Pretty much the same answer in regards to telling you the general location of the milk and if I picked up on the fact that you were a practicing lesbian I'd also say something about how you shouldn't be doing that. I would then leave it up to you to decide whether you wanted to turn that into a discussion. What do you care more about, putting what is wrong with me "on the record, " by telling me I'm doing wrong, or most effectively influencing me to do what's right? There's the rub, an it applies to any number of sins. I have not found your approach to be ideal; it can be counterproductive, even hurtful. You might see one sin in me yet have no idea what other obstacle I'm already working in earnestly. In fact it could be the thing needed to be overcome in order for me to progress beyond the sin you see. So, please be careful. I don't think you'd want your desire to correct others to act as a stumbling block to their progression. 7
Russell C McGregor Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: Wait. You think there will be an expectation that the church will abandon it's moral standards if Ahab doesn't point out my sins to me on a regular basis???? Really?? Oh, at least twice a day. Seriously no, I don't think Ahab needs to point your sins out to you. I just think that we need to know what the Church's stand is, and be willing to tell anyone who wants to know about it. 14 hours ago, california boy said: You as well as church leaders have made it pretty clear that there is no place for me in the church without me dumping my partner who I love and enjoy a very wonderful life with. I don't think there has been any fuzzy areas on that even before the new policy. Alas, not everyone's perceptions have been as fuzz-free as yours.
Popular Post Rain Posted February 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/8/2016 at 9:49 AM, Ahab said: What I have in mind is the idea that when people love others and know the others they love are doing things they should not be doing, then they should say something to point out what they should not be doing. We are all brothers and sisters here and as brothers and sisters I feel we have that duty out of the love and concern we should have for each other. And it doesn't always have to be a long conversation, either. Just a little "you shouldn't do that!" should be enough to get their attention, and with enough people saying that to them they'll eventually get the message that at least maybe they shouldn't do that after all. I used to feel this way till I started to lose my son and I completely lost myself. I understand why - the church teaches so much about teaching our children, the Lord chastens us etc. I misunderstood just how it works. Long story short I found that rarely does Heavenly Father want me to correct another adult. Usually he wants me to help them be ready for when he will correct them. The more I share my love for them and how God loves me when He corrects me the more open I find others to be when it is their turn. Depending on how open the "sin" is I can't tell you how old it gets when people are always correcting you. I've been a type 1 diabetic since age 9. I can't tell you how many people have corrected my eating habits out of "love". You (general you) may not realize it because you only corrected me once in life, but when 1000 of you do it then it feels less like a correction of love and more like someone is trying to take away agency. Something I am just beginning to understand now is that I have had the wrong focus. We are a doing church. Works are so important, working helps us build spirituality etc. But when we are talking about service to others we come in backwards if we focus on what we can do or say. I prayed for a long for what I should say or do for my son. Through Elder Scott's talk I was told I should love him so that he could feel Heavenly Father's love. Not long ago I went to pray about what else I should do. The Spirit quietly told me I should quit focusing on what I should "do". I should focus on learning what his needs are. The impression the Spirit gave me was "this isn't about you and what you can do. Until you can take the focus off of you then there is nothing you can say or do to help him." It's an oh so subtle difference because I thought that I was only trying to tell him things out of love. And here is what I have found. If people trust me because of my love and example then they will often come to me when they are ready for correction and 100% more likely to use that correction and 99% of the time the Spirit did the work of specifically correcting them rather than me. 8
Rain Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 13 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Seriously no, I don't think Ahab needs to point your sins out to you. I just think that we need to know what the Church's stand is, and be willing to tell anyone who wants to know about it. Agreed. When we share the information then the Lord will let each specific person who is listening know if this is something they need to work on or not. 1
Meadowchik Posted February 9, 2016 Author Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, california boy said: Wait. You think there will be an expectation that the church will abandon it's moral standards if Ahab doesn't point out my sins to me on a regular basis???? Really?? You as well as church leaders have made it pretty clear that there is no place for me in the church without me dumping my partner who I love and enjoy a very wonderful life with. I don't think there has been any fuzzy areas on that even before the new policy. To the last paragraph, if Gustav-Wrathall is correct, then you are still wanted at Church, and your presence ( both of you) would be welcomed. At least, that is what the FP hopes for and expects from local members. I promise you that I would be happy to see you in my ward on Sunday Edited February 9, 2016 by Meadowchik
smac97 Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: Wait. You think there will be an expectation that the church will abandon it's moral standards if Ahab doesn't point out my sins to me on a regular basis???? Really?? You as well as church leaders have made it pretty clear that there is no place for me in the church without me dumping my partner who I love and enjoy a very wonderful life with. I don't think there has been any fuzzy areas on that even before the new policy. Doesn't the second paragraph above vindicate the Church's policy change (relating to being in a same-sex relationship as a form of apostasy)? A Latter-day Saint choosing to enter into a same-sex marriage presents an insurmountable dilemma. The Church sees it that way (so, apparently, do you). So for a member of the Church, something has to stop, namely, either A) the continuing relationship with the Church (and its saving ordinances, and the covenants arising therefrom, and the condemnation for being in unrepentant and ongoing violation of those covenants), or B) the continuation of the same-sex marriage. The Church's present policy addresses the dilemma. Not by avoiding it or ignoring it or pretending it isn't there. Rather, the Church's new policy creates a remedy which allows the church member to choose for himself/herself that which he/she values most. And if the church member chooses to subordinate his/her relationship to the Gospel to the other relationship that is innately incompatible with it, then at least the member is released from his/her covenants (and hence may be under less condemnation at then end of all things). I'm not denying that this is a painful dilemma to confront. I'm sure it is. But it seems that the Church's revised policy, when viewed through the lens of the Restored Gospel (rather than through, say, the facile and uninspired and ignorant lens of The World), leaves the individual better off than had he/she continued to live in violation of his/her covenants. Thanks, -Smac 2
Daniel2 Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, smac97 said: Doesn't the second paragraph above vindicate the Church's policy change (relating to being in a same-sex relationship as a form of apostasy)? A Latter-day Saint choosing to enter into a same-sex marriage presents an insurmountable dilemma. The Church sees it that way (so, apparently, do you). So for a member of the Church, something has to stop, namely, either A) the continuing relationship with the Church (and its saving ordinances, and the covenants arising therefrom, and the condemnation for being in unrepentant and ongoing violation of those covenants), or B) the continuation of the same-sex marriage. The Church's present policy addresses the dilemma. Not by avoiding it or ignoring it or pretending it isn't there. Rather, the Church's new policy creates a remedy which allows the church member to choose for himself/herself that which he/she values most. And if the church member chooses to subordinate his/her relationship to the Gospel to the other relationship that is innately incompatible with it, then at least the member is released from his/her covenants (and hence may be under less condemnation at then end of all things). I'm not denying that this is a painful dilemma to confront. I'm sure it is. But it seems that the Church's revised policy, when viewed through the lens of the Restored Gospel (rather than through, say, the facile and uninspired and ignorant lens of The World), leaves the individual better off than had he/she continued to live in violation of his/her covenants. Thanks, -Smac Insofar as the current policy applies to labeling entering the status of a same-sex marriage as a state of apostasy, I actually agree with all of the above. I have no problem with the church identifying same-sex marriages as apostasy. I have read about some people who were surprised and/or upset by that portion of the policy, but I'm not among them, and no one I know, am friends with, or interact with personally in real life (or even on social media) was upset by that aspect of the current policy. At this time, I think it's best (and most honest, for all concerned) for individuals who are married to a member of the same-sex not to be counted among the membership numbers of the church, preferably through resignation, but if not, the church is fully within it's right to excommunicate them. Daniel Edited February 9, 2016 by Daniel2 1
Jeanne Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Insofar as the current policy applies to labeling entering the status of a same-sex marriage as a state of apostasy, I actually agree with all of the above. I have no problem with the church identifying same-sex marriages as apostasy. I have read about some people who were surprised and/or upset by that portion of the policy, but I'm not among them, and no one I know, am friends with, or interact with personally in real life (or even on social media) was upset by that aspect of the current policy. At this time, I think it's best (and most honest, for all concerned) for individuals who are married to a member of the same-sex not to be counted among the membership numbers of the church, preferably through resignation, but if not, the church is fully within it's right to excommunicate them. Daniel Do you feel though that it would be more balanced if adulterers of either sex also be exed?
Daniel2 Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Do you feel though that it would be more balanced if adulterers of either sex also be exed? I can see, from the church's perspective, that same-sex marriage is more deserving of church sanctions than adultery. From what I understand and have experienced (and heard from many other men who were also previously involved in adultery during a mixed-orientation marriage), adultery (whether the adultery is between opposite-sex partners or same-sex partners) continues to be treated the same as it has been--it MAY be appropriate to excommunicate, or it may NOT--depending on the discernment and decision of the local church council presiding over the church court. Adultery is different than marriage (same-sex or polygamous) in that adultery is not a formalized, ongoing, legal contract declaring a chosen intent to defy the Law of Chastity. IMO, Smac's description exemplifies how same-sex marriage is and should be treated differently than adultery. I also think aligning treating members who enter same-sex marriage with how the church treats those in polygamous marriage is appropriate, and more analogous with members who commit adultery. Edited February 9, 2016 by Daniel2 2
smac97 Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 28 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Do you feel though that it would be more balanced if adulterers of either sex also be exed? A penitent person can repent of his adultery by . . . ceasing to commit adultery. A penitent person can only repent of being in a same-sex marriage by . . . terminating the marriage. A big difference, that. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Rain said: Long story short I found that rarely does Heavenly Father want me to correct another adult. Usually he wants me to help them be ready for when he will correct them. The more I share my love for them and how God loves me when He corrects me the more open I find others to be when it is their turn. I agree. I believe God directed us to stand back from imposing our standards on our daughter's behaviour except as required to save her life because of her extreme sensivity at that time when the world fell in on her (she got diabetes and all of her other issues went into massive overload for her, sleep disorder so she could never have a predictable schedule, depression and anxiety including panic attacks, eventually thyroid issues). He gave us his peace along with direction that she was going to need to find her own way. My parents were always tinkering with us...or so it felt like, so this was very contrary to what felt right to me, but 13 years later it is obvious why we needed to do it that way even though her path isn't the one I long for her to have. We teach primarily by example, demonstrating the benefit of having God in our lives. Some day I am certain God will help her make the connections, but at this time she is so distrustful of her internal state due to all the mixed messages she gets from it that have nothing to do with what is going on around her (she knows she is very safe, there is no reason for the anxiety and yet here she is having major anxiety experiences) that she doesn't believe that she has ever experienced the Spirit. There is really no way for her to accurately identify it since all of her internal mental and emotional states, she can point to having a physical chemical cause for them. She will have to be able to trust herself before she will be able to trust what she is feeling from God. I am so grateful I had a few years of what she has constantly so I understand that it is impossible for her to know the Spirit is there. I had past experience with the Spirit when this happened to me and so I eventually learned how to see the Spirit acting in other ways in my life. I am hoping someday that path will be available to her but it is like asking someone who is blind from birth to understand color at this point. I don't make assumptions about how the Spirit is working in others' lives any more. Know that doing so can cause harm. I wait to have them or the Spirit teach me what is appropriate. Quote I've been a type 1 diabetic since age 9. I can't tell you how many people have corrected my eating habits out of "love". You (general you) may not realize it because you only corrected me once in life, but when 1000 of you do it then it feels less like a correction of love and more like someone is trying to take away agency. It gets so old being told that "if only you would do this..., you could get your daughter off of medication completely and she would be so much healthier". And then have to patiently explain "no, that would kill her" (I don't use those words as that could hurt their feelings, but that is essentially what I have to tell them). And while it is kind for others to worry about making sure she has the right stuff to eat at dinners, being treated differently is not only not necessary but has in the past been harmful due to her extreme shyness tied to her anxiety. Going to dinners even with family (besides her brother's) is not happening any more unfortunately. Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm 2
Meadowchik Posted February 9, 2016 Author Posted February 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: I agree. I believe God directed us to stand back from imposing our standards on our daughter's behaviour except as required to save her life because of her extreme sensivity at that time when the world fell in on her (she got diabetes and all of her other issues went into massive overload for her, sleep disorder so she could never have a predictable schedule, depression and anxiety including panic attacks, eventually thyroid issues). He gave us his peace along with direction that she was going to need to find her own way. My parents were always tinkering with us...or so it felt like, so this was very contrary to what felt right to me, but 13 years later it is obvious why we needed to do it that way even though her path isn't the one I long for her to have. We teach primarily by example, demonstrating the benefit of having God in our lives. Some day I am certain God will help her make the connections, but at this time she is so distrustful of her internal state due to all the mixed messages she gets from it that have nothing to do with what is going on around her (she knows she is very safe, there is no reason for the anxiety and yet here she is having major anxiety experiences) that she doesn't believe that she has ever experienced the Spirit. There is really no way for her to accurately identify it since all of her internal mental and emotional states, she can point to having a physical chemical cause for them. She will have to be able to trust herself before she will be able to trust what she is feeling from God. I am so grateful I had a few years of what she has constantly so I understand that it is impossible for her to know the Spirit is there. I had past experience with the Spirit when this happened to me and so I eventually learned how to see the Spirit acting in other ways in my life. I am hoping someday that path will be available to her but it is like asking someone who is blind from birth to understand color at this point. I don't make assumptions about how the Spirit is working in others' lives any more. Know that doing so can cause harm. I wait to have them or the Spirit teach me what is appropriate. It gets so old being told that "if only you would do this..., you could get your daughter off of medication completely and she would be so much healthier". And then have to patiently explain "no, that would kill her" (I don't use those words as that could hurt their feelings, but that is essentially what I have to tell them). And while it is kind for others to worry about making sure she has the right stuff to eat at dinners, being treated differently is not only not necessary but has in the past been harmful due to her extreme shyness tied to her anxiety. Going to dinners even with family (besides her brothers) is not happening any more unfortunately. Blessings to you and yours, Calm! 1
Jeanne Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I can see, from the church's perspective, that same-sex marriage is more deserving of church sanctions than adultery. From what I understand and have experienced (and heard from many other men who were also previously involved in adultery during a mixed-orientation marriage), adultery (whether the adultery is between opposite-sex partners or same-sex partners) continues to be treated the same as it has been--it MAY be appropriate to excommunicate, or it may NOT--depending on the discernment and decision of the local church council presiding over the church court. Adultery is different than marriage (same-sex or polygamous) in that adultery is not a formalized, ongoing, legal contract declaring a chosen intent to defy the Law of Chastity. IMO, Smac's description exemplifies how same-sex marriage is and should be treated differently than adultery. I also think aligning treating members who enter same-sex marriage with how the church treats those in polygamous marriage is appropriate, and more analogous with members who commit adultery. You are so understanding and I respect that.
Jeanne Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: A penitent person can repent of his adultery by . . . ceasing to commit adultery. A penitent person can only repent of being in a same-sex marriage by . . . terminating the marriage. A big difference, that. Thanks, -Smac I see the difference in your eyes. Perhaps it is hard for me to separate morals in general to the morals of the church. But..I get it.
Jeanne Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Blessings to you and yours, Calm! I second that! 1
california boy Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: To the last paragraph, if Gustav-Wrathall is correct, then you are still wanted at Church, and your presence ( both of you) would be welcomed. At least, that is what the FP hopes for and expects from local members. I promise you that I would be happy to see you in my ward on Sunday Thanks for your comment. Really. I have no doubt you would welcome me into your ward. But I don't really think the church wants me to be there. Labeling gays apostates makes it pretty clear that there is no place for gay couples that are in a relationship, especially one that is so meaningful in their lives. The church could have approached gay couples with a more open tent policy, encouraging them to be as much of the gospel as they possibly could. Perhaps in time the couple would continue to progress in the gospel. But labeling them apostates is pretty clear, that is not the approach they encourage. i agree with Smac's comments. The only gays welcome in the church are celibate ones. The rest and their children that live with them are not. 1
california boy Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Doesn't the second paragraph above vindicate the Church's policy change (relating to being in a same-sex relationship as a form of apostasy)? A Latter-day Saint choosing to enter into a same-sex marriage presents an insurmountable dilemma. The Church sees it that way (so, apparently, do you). So for a member of the Church, something has to stop, namely, either A) the continuing relationship with the Church (and its saving ordinances, and the covenants arising therefrom, and the condemnation for being in unrepentant and ongoing violation of those covenants), or B) the continuation of the same-sex marriage. The Church's present policy addresses the dilemma. Not by avoiding it or ignoring it or pretending it isn't there. Rather, the Church's new policy creates a remedy which allows the church member to choose for himself/herself that which he/she values most. And if the church member chooses to subordinate his/her relationship to the Gospel to the other relationship that is innately incompatible with it, then at least the member is released from his/her covenants (and hence may be under less condemnation at then end of all things). I'm not denying that this is a painful dilemma to confront. I'm sure it is. But it seems that the Church's revised policy, when viewed through the lens of the Restored Gospel (rather than through, say, the facile and uninspired and ignorant lens of The World), leaves the individual better off than had he/she continued to live in violation of his/her covenants. Thanks, -Smac I completely agree with you and share the same opinion on this as Daniel. I have no problem having the church lable me as an apostate. I do think it is petty that the church doesn't allow children of gay couples from being baptised. I haven't really bought off on the idea that the child is better off if they are not allowed to receive the blessings of baptism. But hey, it is their church and their decision. And it doesn't effect me. My children are all older than 18. Hummm. I wonder if they are suppose to go tell the bishop that they condemn their father. That hasn't really come up. As you may remember, I am not married to my partner. My sister asked me why we weren't married. I asked her what would the point of marrying him be? From the church's position, living with him and not marrying seems to be better than marrying him. Either way, I am sure I should be labled an apostate. While I am not actually married to him, I deeply love him and are fully committed to being with him for the rest of my life.
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Blessings to you and yours, Calm! Thank you. We have a good life. Not easy, but there are a lot harder ones out there. We have a very good life for most people in my own and my daughter's situation, very blessed with support, both physical and emotional. Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm 2
Ahab Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: I completely agree with you and share the same opinion on this as Daniel. I have no problem having the church lable me as an apostate. I do think it is petty that the church doesn't allow children of gay couples from being baptised. I haven't really bought off on the idea that the child is better off if they are not allowed to receive the blessings of baptism. But hey, it is their church and their decision. And it doesn't effect me. My children are all older than 18. Hummm. I wonder if they are suppose to go tell the bishop that they condemn their father. That hasn't really come up. As you may remember, I am not married to my partner. My sister asked me why we weren't married. I asked her what would the point of marrying him be? From the church's position, living with him and not marrying seems to be better than marrying him. Either way, I am sure I should be labled an apostate. While I am not actually married to him, I deeply love him and are fully committed to being with him for the rest of my life. It irks me when you and others keep talking as if the Church doesn't want you to continue to love the man you have sex with. It's as if you just keep ignoring my and others' efforts to correct that false idea. We do want you to love him. Even more than you do now. And it's all fine and dandy with us if that man stays in your life until death do you part. We just want you to stop having sex with him and every other man because sexual relations between people of the same sex is not good.
Recommended Posts