Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[Gray]

48 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?

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.

Sorry, blaming God for the awful things you're saying about gay families just doesn't fly. 

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Laugh it up, fuzz ball.

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I suppose anyone could use that as an excuse to insult any group they like, up to and including the LDS church. 

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Sorry, blaming God for the awful things you're saying about gay families just doesn't fly. 

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

Quote Anne Lamott if you want; I will quote Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Quote Anne Lamott if you want; I will quote Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Sure, just don't pretend you're quoting God. 

ETA: You weren't really quoting anyone in your first comment, though. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Sure, just don't pretend you're quoting God. 

 I'm not pretending.

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, ERMD said:

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.

Do you believe that a gay couple raising a child is not a family?  If so, that is unkind and insulting.  Period.  (And does a "righteous home" mean a Mormon home?  I know of at least 2 gay couples who are very Christian and attend their church weekly, they are some of the most Christlike, moral people I know who are full of integrity and are always trying to help others.)

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, ERMD said:

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.

It is the variety that makes family.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

You have misunderstood. It's mandatory disciplinary counsel. Elder Christofferson specifically said that that does not correlate to mandatory excommunication. 

The court is mandatory but the outcome isn't. 

Elder Christofferson is playing with words here.

The mandatory council will always result in excommunication unless the defendant agrees to divorce their gay spouse.

Divorce or excommunication.

It is a Hobson's choice.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

 I'm not pretending.

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

What that doesn't say is that everything a prophet says is identical to what the Lord says. Or that everything that you say is identical to what God says. 

And of course no modern revelation has been offered on this topic. If it had hopefully it would be something deeper than Fred Phelpsisms. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe that a gay couple raising a child is not a family?  If so, that is unkind and insulting.  Period.  (And does a "righteous home" mean a Mormon home?  I know of at least 2 gay couples who are very Christian and attend their church weekly, they are some of the most Christlike, moral people I know.)

"Mormon" does NOT equal righteous, and "non-Mormon" does not equal unrighteous, so don't throw that in there.

As I stated, Satan is the great counterfeiter.  Gay "marriage" is not a marriage, and 2 gay people raising children is not a family.  It is a counterfeit.  Families are eternal, and these units (it isn't insulting to say "unit", is it?) are not eternal; never will be.

On this issue, even the elect will stumble.

[ERMD]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is the variety that makes family.

Yes.  Within the bounds the Lord has set.

[consiglieri]

1 hour 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?

 

This is not the Lord's ideal of a family.

At least not prior to 1890.

I mean, 1904.

Why does the Lord change his mind so much, I wonder?

[consiglieri]

16 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I can't overcome someone's deficit in reading comprehension.  I will ignore any other comments that head this direction.

Best to tuck tail and run, I agree.

[ERMD]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Best to tuck tail and run, I agree.

I'm not one to waste time, but then again, I did respond to this.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Yes.  Within the bounds the Lord has set.

And what are those bounds? Sure life would be nice if family life was Mommy, Daddy, and birth children. Right out of 1950's TV. Reality is usually quite different.  We had already raised our own children and had grandchildren. We took my niece and her son in because she was unable to be the parent in any meaningful way.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, ERMD said:

"Mormon" does NOT equal righteous, and "non-Mormon" does not equal unrighteous, so don't throw that in there.

As I stated, Satan is the great counterfeiter.  Gay "marriage" is not a marriage, and 2 gay people raising children is not a family.  It is a counterfeit.  Families are eternal, and these units (it isn't insulting to say "unit", is it?) are not eternal; never will be.

On this issue, even the elect will stumble.

You state that the family does not need to be a Mormon family to be righteous, but then you contradict yourself in the next paragraph.  Or do you believe those families that have not been sealed together in the temple are still families?   If so, that would include gay couples and their children.

I'm not going back and forth with you on this.  You completely contradict yourself and keep going back to what you think the Lord's definition is of a family.  Just because all family varieties were not mentioned in the proclamation, that doesn't mean the Lord does not consider other combinations to be a family, and even a righteous family.

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Alan]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

  If so, that would include gay couples and their children.

 

No it wouldn't.

Gay couples, by reason of biology, cannot have children together. Therefore not a family no matter what the "law" says.

[ALarson]

Just now, Alan said:

No it wouldn't.

Gay couples, by reason of biology, cannot have children together. Therefore not a family no matter what the "law" says.

Neither can parents of adopted children.  So, therefore they are "not a family" either?  

[thesometimesaint]

We're not Sealed to my niece and her son, are we not family?

[Alan]

Just now, ALarson said:

Neither can parents of adopted children.  So, therefore they are "not a family" either?  

The words "hairs" and "splitting" come to mind.

[rongo]

Putting aside the Proclamation on the Family, for the sake of discussion (because quoting it is unnecessary --- we all know what it says about family) . . .

Does anyone here dispute that God's preference is for all of His children to live in a mother-father-children family (And, yes, consig', polygamy consisted of multiple mother-father-children families, with the same father. Multiple Venn diagrams sharing a common circle)? 

That that is the ideal?

Granted, that in our messy modern world we lead messy lives and increasingly have messy arrangements (the Proclamation addresses this need for "individual adaptation" of single parenthood, extended family raising children, etc.). I see that in the family demographics of my 7th and 8th grade students --- in spades. 

But does anyone dispute that this isn't ideal? That it isn't God's preference?

If the Church is God's authorized Church, how are we supposed to teach the ideal, call the world to repentance, and exhort the world to attain God's ideal? How do the critics think the Church could do this better (other than just turning a blind eye to it and not addressing it at all)?

Some people seem to be suggesting that doing just that is mean. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Alan said:

No it wouldn't.

Gay couples, by reason of biology, cannot have children together. Therefore not a family no matter what the "law" says.

 

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

The words "hairs" and "splitting" come to mind.

Sounds to me that you are splitting heirs.

PS; When my wife and I took my niece and her son in we were well past the age where we could have anymore biological children. They are still family.

Edited February 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Putting aside the Proclamation on the Family, for the sake of discussion (because quoting it is unnecessary --- we all know what it says about family) . . .

Does anyone here dispute that God's preference is for all of His children to live in a mother-father-children family (And, yes, consig', polygamy consisted of multiple mother-father-children families, with the same father. Multiple Venn diagrams sharing a common circle)? 

That that is the ideal?

Granted, that in our messy modern world we lead messy lives and increasingly have messy arrangements (the Proclamation addresses this need for "individual adaptation" of single parenthood, extended family raising children, etc.). I see that in the family demographics of my 7th and 8th grade students --- in spades. 

But does anyone dispute that this isn't ideal? That it isn't God's preference?

If the Church is God's authorized Church, how are we supposed to teach the ideal, call the world to repentance, and exhort the world to attain God's ideal? How do the critics think the Church could do this better (other than just turning a blind eye to it and not addressing it at all)?

Some people seem to be suggesting that doing just that is mean. 

Apparently that's no longer the case. In the thread about calling fathers on long missions, lots of people seemed to think that families can do just fine without a father in the home. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

No it wouldn't.

Gay couples, by reason of biology, cannot have children together. Therefore not a family no matter what the "law" says.

Consider Elder Oaks' second marriage. Are you saying they're not a family?