Kemara Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am curious as to why a Church member entering into a polygamous marriage would be more serious, from the Church's point of view, than entering into a same-sex marriage. Any thoughts from anyone on this point? Perhaps it is the whole legality issue that Pres. Hinckley refers too? The added component of violating civil law?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Could you provide a reference for Elder Christofferson's comments on this issue? I don't doubt you, I would just like to read his comments for myself. Excommunication appears to be mandatory for Church members who enter into a polygamous marriage. See, e.g., here: I am curious as to why a Church member entering into a polygamous marriage would be more serious, from the Church's point of view, than entering into a same-sex marriage. Any thoughts from anyone on this point? Thanks, -Smac In either instance, doesn't it largely depend upon how repentant the one is who is being disciplined? That is to say, a refusal to repent on the part of one engaged in homosexual behavior is as serious a matter as a refusal to repent on the part of one engaged in polygamy and apt to be dealt with as harshly. I really don't see a qualitative distinction. Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
smac97 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 6 hours ago, rockpond said: You are correct that we do not know that motivations of the Bishop in question. We do, however, know that in November the Church published a policy that deemed same-sex married members in apostasy and mandated disciplinary councils. And now we have a bishop confronting a member of his ward who is in a same-sex married, telling her that she must either divorce, resign, or face a disciplinary council. So, regardless of what was going on in the bishop's mind or heart, he was, in fact, implementing a church policy. Well, to be honest, I'm not sure that the purported conduct by this bishop is a correct implementation of the Church's policy. The changes to the CHI say nothing about issuing a tripartite ultimatum of "divorce, resign, or face a disciplinary council." To be frank, my surmise is that this is the sort of thing the Brethren did not want to have happen. As regarding Church members who enter into polygamous marriages, my understanding has been A) that disciplinary proceedings are mandatory, B) those administering discipline do not issue ultimatums about getting divorces as a way to avoid discipline, and C) the individual, if found to have indeed entered into a polygamous marriage, is excommunicated. But according to Bluebell (who is citing Elder Christofferson), in situations involving a Church member in a same-sex marriage, it appears that the individual, if found to have indeed entered into a same-sex marriage, is subject to mandatory disciplinary proceedings, but not necessarily subject to mandatory excommunication. IOW, while polygamy appears to trigger a mandatory excommunication, same-sex marriage does not. I wonder if that is so, and if so why it is so. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Quote Could you provide a reference for Elder Christofferson's comments on this issue? I don't doubt you, I would just like to read his comments for myself. Excommunication appears to be mandatory for Church members who enter into a polygamous marriage. See, e.g., here: I am curious as to why a Church member entering into a polygamous marriage would be more serious, from the Church's point of view, than entering into a same-sex marriage. Any thoughts from anyone on this point? Thanks, -Smac In either instance, doesn't it largely depend upon how repentant the one is who is being disciplined? That is to say, a refusal to repent on the part of one engaged in homosexual behavior is as serious a matter as a refusal to repent on the part of one engaged in polygamy and apt to be dealt with as harshly. I really don't see a qualitative dustinction. If Bluebell is correct, then the distinction appears to be mandatory excommunication for polygamy versus possible excommunication for same-sex marriage. I am not sure about disciplinary proceedings against polygamists being conditioned on "repentance" (repenting from practicing unauthorized polygamy, which would require divorce). Rather, when a person is guilty of "apostasy" in the form of having entered into polygamy, the result of the disciplinary council in such circumstances seems to be mandatory excommunication. In contrast, Bluebell is indicating that Elder Christofferson has indicated that a person can be guilty of "apostasy" in the form of having entered into a same-sex marriage, but that the result of the disciplinary council in such circumstances is not "mandatory" excommunication (excommunication is an option, but then so is disfellowshipment, etc.). That seems like a rather significant difference in treatment of the two forms of apostasy. I'd like to understand it better. Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 46 minutes ago, Kemara said: At war against gays that choose to marry? Really? War requires conflict between two parties, as such gay marrieds must be at war with the Church. Are you willing to recognize that gay marrieds are at war against the church? If it is correct to characterise the issue as a war (personally I think its utter nonsense but will follow along with your theme) then I think its safe to label the church's position as a war of defence in response to the offensive brought to its doors by gay marrieds who knew full well that their decisions conflicted with the church. Gay marrieds knew there would be a conflict and simply didn't give a brass razoo...and this is true even before the policy change. So who can blame the church for defending itself and its values? I think there are few gays that think they have a friend in the Mormon Church. So yeah, I would say there are two sides in conflict with each other. The first volley was made by the church when it tried to take away the civil rights of gays to marry who weren't even members of the church. I know very few gays who like the church. Did you think this war was only one sided?? You are wrong about this being a defensive conflict. The Mormon church was not even on the radar of most gays until the church made a stand against their constitutional rights. And I do agree with you. A gay member that chooses to marry is taking a stand that is not in compliance with what the church wants them to do. It is completely their choice and the church deals with them accordingly. They are apostates and are excommunicated. Quote This is not true, you have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that and I don't think you are really that stupid...very emotional about the issue but not stupid. The church does not want anyone out of the church. What the church wants is for gay marrieds to set their lives straight and live in accordance with church policy and to participate fully in all the programs of the church. The church invites everyone to do so, including gay marrieds. Do you disagree? When you make apostasy mandatory for all married gay couples, then that pretty much sounds like the church wants all gay married couples either divorced or out of the church. If the church forces them to divorce then they really aren't a gay married couple any longer. I think there is probably a reason gay couples to marry. The church inviting them to divorce as the first step to being a member of the church is not really a welcome is it? Quote This is simply not true. This policy only relates to non-repentant gay marrieds who have refused the invitation to participate fully in the church. The invitation is there, it is the gay marrieds decision to accept it or not. Don't you think it is a wonderful thing that the church issues this invitation to everyone including gay marrieds? How many straight couples do you know that would divorce their wives and break up their families in order to stay in any church? Would you divorce your wife? Would you break up your family if the church told you that you were an apostate for marrying the person you love? Not really an option for most people whether you are straight or gay. Quote That is not true either, you batting zero so far. If this comment is made in the context that only gays require mandatory excommunication for being married then you are wrong. If this comment is made in the context that only gay marrieds require mandatory excommunication then you are wrong again. So either way, you're wrong. Can you be in a gay marriage and not be excommunicated? How many bishops are on the hunt for inactive members who are living in sin and excommunicating them?? As I pointed out before, this policy only relates to gay married couples that are unwilling to break up their families. You can be straight and live in sin. The church doesn't ask you to leave your loved one and break up their families. The church doesn't tell them to get married or they will be branded apostates and excommunicated. So yeah, it sounds a lot like this rule only applies if you are gay. Quote Yes, but the bishop only follows the handbook to its ultimate conclusion when the gay married refuses the invitation. Notice that the Bishop discussed in this thread did just that, it might have been offered crudely and perhaps even rudely, but it is now up to the Sister to decide to accept the invitation to participate fully in the church program or force the hand of the church to do something that it does not want to do. No disagreement with you there. Quote This is correct. So what is your point. Gay marrieds are significantly different to every other classification of chastity laws. So what is the beef about them being treated according to this classification and in a manner that is different to all the other classifications? Should we not treat people who are different according to their differences? I certainly have no beef with the policy. It is the way the church wants to run its membership. I am only pointing out that members should not pretend that there is any hope of the church changing it's position on gay marriage. They have made that perfectly clear. If you disagree with that position, get over it. Yes the church treats gays differently. That is apparent. So what? People should get over it. Quote I have debated you on subjects similar to this on a number of occasions. While you begrudgingly accept the church's position you have most definitely pretended that it should be something else and done violence to logic and reason to try and demonstrate that it should be different. So best to heed your own bad advice before dishing it out. I don't begrudgingly accept anything. I completely understand the church's position and support their right to run the church the way they want. Where do you get the idea I begrudge anything? Violence to logic? What are you talking about. What have I said that is not exactly the position of the church? Does the church offer any other alternative to gay married couples? If the church demands that they divorce, then they aren't really a gay married couple any longer are they? So just what is the hope the church gives them?? Quote Wrong again, these are not the only choices. Among others, one could choose to petition the Lord for change. There is ample scriptural evidence that the Lord can and does change his mind, so get to it, be constructive, be proactive, it may lead to absolutely nothing but surely that is better than handing out bad advice and whining about the issue. Seriously? You really think the policy will change through prayer? I guess it is possible. It only took 150 years for blacks to be allowed for their families to be sealed. I will be long dead by then. And there seems to be little hope of any change occurring. Do you see any hope??? 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: If Bluebell is correct, then the distinction appears to be mandatory excommunication for polygamy versus possible excommunication for same-sex marriage. I am not sure about disciplinary proceedings against polygamists being conditioned on "repentance" (repenting from practicing unauthorized polygamy, which would require divorce). Rather, when a person is guilty of "apostasy" in the form of having entered into polygamy, the result of the disciplinary council in such circumstances seems to be mandatory excommunication. In contrast, Bluebell is indicating that Elder Christofferson has indicated that a person can be guilty of "apostasy" in the form of having entered into a same-sex marriage, but that the result of the disciplinary council in such circumstances is not "mandatory" excommunication (excommunication is an option, but then so is disfellowshipment, etc.). That seems like a rather significant difference in treatment of the two forms of apostasy. I'd like to understand it better. Thanks, -Smac I should think excommunication would pretty much be mandatory as well in cases where the individual refused to end any ongoing relationship involving homosexual behavior, be it "marriage" or whatever, and to cease the behavior. Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Yirgacheffe Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Here is another lesbian couple facing church discipline in spite of not attending the church as adults. http://fox13now.com/2016/02/25/same-sex-couple-claims-lds-church-congregation-harassing-them-over-disciplinary-council/
Popular Post Gray Posted February 26, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 26, 2016 12 hours ago, ERMD said: Satan is the Great Counterfeiter, and this is a prime example of his success. Same-sex couples are not married, and a same-sex couple raising children is not a family. What an awful thing to say. This kind of anti-family rhetoric is unfortunately fueled by the current policy. 6
Gray Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 9 hours ago, smac97 said: I agree. That's why I said: "In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation." Doing what God has asked us to do is good, even when it's not pleasant (or popular) to do it. No, it hasn't. If anything, it seems like the recent policy disentangles LDS from covenants that conflict with their desired life choices. Excommunication releases such individuals from the covenants they had previously accepted. Perhaps such a release is actually the compassionate thing to do for a person in open rebellion. Perhaps allowing such open rebellion and covenant-breaking to continue unabated would leave them under a greater condemnation. In any event. the Church's policy allows gay couples in same-sex marriages to continue with their family choices. That's not "anti-family" at all. Also, have you previously accused the Church of being "anti-family" because it excommunicates polygamists? If not, then you're being rather inconsistent, are you not? I don't think so. I suspect that the Brethren implemented the policy so that bishops would not need to present a "get a divorce or we'll excommunicate you" dilemma to members of the Church. I think that the act of entering into a same-sex marriage, like entering into a polygamous marriage, is per se grounds for excommunication. No breaking up of families needed. Oh, come on. Membership in the Church is entirely voluntary on both sides. It's a privilege, not a right. The Church has every right to impose conditions on continuing membership in the Church. And as far as discipline, the Church's own doctrines specifically state that "we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them," and that the Church "can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." And the process of excommunication involves . . . a meeting where a group of people talk and pray and keep the goings-on in strict confidence. This is "persecution?" This is "ugly?" Such inaccurate and hyperbolic rhetoric is not helpful. Thanks, -Smac Think about the way the policy is set up. Only married gay couples are subject to mandatory discipline. And there is only one way for them to avoid that discipline - to divorce. Never mind the fallout with their children from the consequences. So the result from this policy is to pressure gay families to dissolve. I'm sorry, it's very ugly to me. This is worse than how blacks were treated pre-1978. 1
Gray Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Kemara said: This is simply not true. This policy only relates to non-repentant gay marrieds who have refused the invitation to participate fully in the church. The invitation is there, it is the gay marrieds decision to accept it or not. Don't you think it is a wonderful thing that the church issues this invitation to everyone including gay marrieds? In this case, "repentance" involves trying to break up their families. Inviting them to divorce, never mind the fallout with their children. This is of course not applied equally. Only gay people are singled out for this treatment. Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray 2
JulieM Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 7 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: Here is another lesbian couple facing church discipline in spite of not attending the church as adults. http://fox13now.com/2016/02/25/same-sex-couple-claims-lds-church-congregation-harassing-them-over-disciplinary-council/ This is disturbing to read. I don't understand why this was done to them and why ward members were approaching them (if the guy in the hardware store was in their ward). Also, wouldn't the church have records showing someone had already been excommunicated? Why hold another disciplinary court for her if that was true? I do wonder how many stories like this will surface now. From the article: "A Mt. Pleasant same-sex couple claims leaders of a congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints harassed them after a series of strange encounters they said were unwanted. The final straw for them was a letter the ward delivered to them, which the women found disturbing. Now, they're trying to understand what sparked the LDS Church to send it. Leisha and Amanda LaCrone are married and raising five children. They each attended an LDS Church as kids, but haven't been a part of the church in more than a decade. "The Church had sent her a letter saying that she was already excommunicated," Amanda explained, about a letter Leisha got from the LDS Church 15 years ago." 1
consiglieri Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 15 hours ago, USU78 said: I guess we're speaking past one another then. High-profile apostates are a special case. Everybody would acknowledge that. There is, however, a difference between Martin Harris and Irving Nonentity's being able to command the attention of the Twelve or the First Presidency. Their cases get treated differently. I would agree with you here, USU. High profile "apostates" are a special case. I would not be surprised that top leaders are involved in directing disciplinary actions in such situations. Nor would anybody else. It only makes sense. The thing that is strange is to have the top leaders themselves adamantly denying any involvement in these situations. Only to find out through various other evidence that they frequently are, in fact, involved in these situations. I think many Mormons are figuring out that their leaders are not being straight with them, and are starting to get fed up with it.
ERMD Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: What an awful thing to say. This kind of anti-family rhetoric is unfortunately fueled by the current policy. This is the Lord's ideal of a family: "THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." That should sound familiar to you. Do you accept it as being true? Accuse Him of saying awful things and spewing anti-family rhetoric, if you will. The reality of life is that children are subject to the decisions of their parents, for good or for ill, until they are adults. Due to choices made by parents, some children are not born within the bonds of matrimony, and some are not raised by a father and a mother in a home. Some couples cannot have children; so the potential argument that single parent families or childless couples don't match the ideal won't fly. I see this as a defining issue. People need to look into their hearts and see where they really stand.
JLHPROF Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: What an awful thing to say. This kind of anti-family rhetoric is unfortunately fueled by the current policy. I Nephi 16 2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. 3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us. 1
ALarson Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ERMD said: This is the Lord's ideal of a family: "THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." That should sound familiar to you. Do you accept it as being true? So, a single Mother raising a child is not a family? How about a Grand parent raising their grandchildren? They aren't a family? There are all types of families, not a one size fits all. What you stated is horrible. A gay couple raising a child is definitely a family. Do you think that child doesn't feel like their parents are their family? Just because a group is not the Lord's "ideal" family, that does not mean they are not a family. Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson 4
stemelbow Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: So, a single Mother raising a child is not a family? How about a Grand parent raising their grandchildren? They aren't a family? There are all types of families, not a one size fits all. What you stated is horrible. A gay couple raising a child is definitely a family. Do you think that child doesn't feel like their parents are their family? Just because a group is not the Lord's "ideal" family, that does not mean they are not a family. I'm an adoptive parent. My wife and I often feel a bit of a tinge when members insist to clarify our adopted child is not in some way our real child. It happens all too often, often in pretty subtle ways. I know why they insist on making that distinction for us, but it's annoying and we don't appreciate it at all. 2
ERMD Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: So, a single Mother raising a child is not a family? How about a Grand parent raising their grandchildren? They aren't a family? There are all types of families, not a one size fits all. What you stated is horrible. A gay couple raising a child is definitely a family. Do you think that child doesn't feel like their parents are their family? Just because a group is not the Lord's "ideal" family, that does not mean they are not a family. Read the rest of my comment. No proof texting allowed.
ALarson Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ERMD said: Read the rest of my comment. No proof texting allowed. Not allowed? LOL I'll quote whatever portion of a post I choose. And, I did read the rest of your comment, but didn't see where you stated these groups were still very much a family just as gay parents raising children are very definitely a family. That's why I didn't quote it. Here's the definition of family: 1. a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for: 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: 3. the spouse and children of one person: Note: "A social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for." There are simply all kinds of families, every shape and size and type. It's insulting for you and others to state that just because the parents are gay, they are not a family. . Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson 3
ERMD Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not allowed? LOL I'll quote whatever portion of a post I choose. And, I did read the rest of your comment, but didn't see where you stated these groups were still very much a family just as gay parents raising children are very definitely a family. That's why I didn't quote it. Here's the definition of family: 1. a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for: 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: 3. the spouse and children of one person: Note: "A social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for." There are simply all kinds of families, every shape and size and type. It's insulting for you and others to state that just because the parents are gay, they are not a family. . Read it again. You missed it. You are making a needless point. You are using the dictionary's definition of a family. I am using the Lord's. Choose you this day, and all that.
ALarson Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ERMD said: Read it again. You missed it. You are making a needless point. You are using the dictionary's definition of a family. I am using the Lord's. Choose you this day, and all that. I missed nothing. You've been very clear on how you feel. And, I know what the family proclamation states. That does not mean that other combinations of adults and children are not a family. . Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not allowed? LOL I'll quote whatever portion of a post I choose. And, I did read the rest of your comment, but didn't see where you stated these groups were still very much a family just as gay parents raising children are very definitely a family. That's why I didn't quote it. Here's the definition of family: 1. a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for: 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: 3. the spouse and children of one person: Note: "A social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for." There are simply all kinds of families, every shape and size and type. It's insulting for you and others to state that just because the parents are gay, they are not a family. We raised our grandnephew. He and his mother are family. 1
ERMD Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: We raised our grandnephew. He and his mother are family. You still haven't read (or understood) the rest of the post. You are making a needless point. There are so many varieties of adults raising children in a righteous home that I couldn't name them all, so I just cited a few to state the caveat.
ALarson Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: We raised our grandnephew. He and his mother are family. Exactly. But according to ERMD, your family is not the Lord's definition of a family. I'm sure the Lord loves your family as much as he loves any other family.
consiglieri Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 16 hours ago, ERMD said: This is laughable. Laugh it up, fuzz ball.
ERMD Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Exactly. But according to ERMD, your family is not the Lord's definition of a family. I'm sure the Lord loves your family as much as he loves any other family. I can't overcome someone's deficit in reading comprehension. I will ignore any other comments that head this direction.
Recommended Posts