Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, Alan said:

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

Nope, it's your words, "cannot have children together"  and stating that means (again, your words and conclusion):  Therefore they are "not a family no matter what the 'law' says", that come to mind.

If that's your reason for why gay couples with children are not a family, that is not valid or true (or it would apply to adoptive families too and other couples who "cannot have children together")

.

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

12 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

It's from Elder Christofferson's interview on the church's policy change.  It's located on the Church's newsroom website.

Here's the quote-"We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline. It means the discipline is mandatory — doesn’t dictate outcomes but it dictates that discipline is needed in those cases."

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope, that your words, "cannot have children together" mean this (again, your words and conclusion): " Therefore not a family no matter what the "law" says", come to mind.

If that's your reason for why gay couples with children are not a family, that is not valid or true (or it would apply to adoptive families too and other couples who "cannot have children together")

.

My reason why gay couples with children are not a family is the same reason why gay couples are not actually married.

If God doesn't allow it to be eternal, it is as ERMD states merely a counterfeit.
A marriage is two people that GOD joins together and views as married.
A family are parents and children that GOD joins together and considers a family unit.  The idea that it is love alone that makes a family is sweet, but not correct.

From our earthly view are SS couples with children a family? - Sure.  Limiting to the temporal I suppose they could be.  Especially if one of the couple is the biological parent or if adoptions have taken place.  But it has an end.
If the family is defined as it is in the gospel as ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children, then as unkind as it may sound, a SS family cannot be considered as such.

[ERMD]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Which was the right thing to do.

AGAIN, this type of situation DOES NOT APPLY.

sheesh...

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

What an awful thing to say. This kind of anti-family rhetoric is unfortunately fueled by the current policy.

It is family!  I can't believe this...I agree with you Gray..what an awful thing to say.

 

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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."

I agree..I saw this and couldn't believe the gall...I am so disappointed at what this policy has done to good people in and outside the church.

[ERMD]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

.

There has been no inconsistency or contradiction.  You fail to understand, and it is not through lack of effort on my part to make these concepts as simple as I can.

[ERMD]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

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.

Yes, they are.

NO ONE here is disputing that.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

From our earthly view are SS couples with children a family? - Sure.  Limiting to the temporal I suppose they could be.  Especially if one of the couple is the biological parent or if adoptions have taken place.  But it has an end.

I know what you believe, JLHPROF, and I respect that.  However, I believe that God will allow each of us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us after this life too).  I do not believe that God will force anyone to be with another person, nor will he force them to stay apart for eternity if they truly love each other.

I know that differs greatly from what you believe.  But, I do believe this.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ERMD said:

There has been no inconsistency or contradiction.  You fail to understand, and it is not through lack of effort on my part to make these concepts as simple as I can.

I have not failed to understand anything.  You did contradict yourself, but I'm not going to continue arguing and pointing that out to you.

We simply disagree that a gay couple raising children is a family.  You say they can't be and I say they definitely are a family.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I know what you believe, JLHPROF, and I respect that.  However, I believe that God will allow each of us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us after this life too).  I do not believe that God will force anyone to be with another person, nor will he force them to stay apart for eternity if they truly love each other.

I know that differs greatly from what you believe.  But, I do believe this.

I respect your belief.

" I do not believe that God will force anyone to be with another person" - agreed
"nor will he force them to stay apart for eternity if they truly love each other" - disagreed

God is a God of law else he would cease to be God.  Even in his merciful providence of our Savior to pay for our sins, he was still required to make sure justice and law were satisfied.  If a relationship violates the laws by which he operates it won't be allowed to continue.  We may disagree on the laws, but in the end they will be how God acts, and one of us will likely be wrong.

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

I guess it's just a bit jarring that bishops are going around trying to get families to either divorce or leave the church. It's pretty awful stuff. 

Sin is pretty awful stuff. I don't know that Bishops need to go around looking for sinners, but once serious sins come to his attention, however that happens - whether at meetings, etc - it becomes his responsibility to call them to repentance or the church becomes burdened with those sins. Living a homosexual lifestyle is clearly contrary to the will of the Lord. How many times does He have to call it an abomination? I consider it one of those challenges of life some people face. Unfortunately, our society is throwing it in people's faces, and I personally believe the women's lib movement has made it worse. Children need to be taught that a physical response does not necessarily mean one is a homosexual. Our children are being exposed to sexual stuff way too early now. It's on TV, all over the internet, and in magazines. No wonder so many kids are getting confused. IHMO children coming to the belief that they are homosexual by the time they are 12 is ridiculous... yet I see this kind of stuff receiving air time in our society. The liberal saying that it takes a village to raise a child, can be turned right around to say that it takes a village to teach sin and acceptance of it. I am not one to go around bashing homosexuals - I barely ever even talk of it - however, that doesn't mean that I am in any way obligated to teach my children to hang around with those who profess such a lifestyle or that it is ok. It just isn't true, and as Christians we can never teach that. While that might cause those with SSA to feel a constant tension in their life, I suppose that is true for all of us who must battle with sinful temptations. Else fornication would be A-ok, adultery would be A-ok, etc. Anyone who won't repent of an such relationships should also be subject to church discipline if the bishop finds out.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I respect your belief.

" I do not believe that God will force anyone to be with another person" - agreed
"nor will he force them to stay apart for eternity if they truly love each other" - disagreed

God is a God of law else he would cease to be God.  Even in his merciful providence of our Savior to pay for our sins, he was still required to make sure justice and law were satisfied.  If a relationship violates the laws by which he operates it won't be allowed to continue.  We may disagree on the laws, but in the end they will be how God acts, and one of us will likely be wrong.

Yes, true.  I just believe that many of the laws that you attribute to God are really laws of men.  That's where the difference occurs.  We each have to go by what the spirit tells us and I believe God will not force those who love each other to live apart for eternity.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Sin is pretty awful stuff. I don't know that Bishops need to go around looking for sinners, but once serious sins come to his attention, however that happens - whether at meetings, etc - it becomes his responsibility to call them to repentance or the church becomes burdened with those sins. Living a homosexual lifestyle is clearly contrary to the will of the Lord. How many times does He have to call it an abomination? I consider it one of those challenges of life some people face. Unfortunately, our society is throwing it in people's faces, and I personally believe the women's lib movement has made it worse. Children need to be taught that a physical response does not necessarily mean one is a homosexual. Our children are being exposed to sexual stuff way too early now. It's on TV, all over the internet, and in magazines. No wonder so many kids are getting confused. IHMO children coming to the belief that they are homosexual by the time they are 12 is ridiculous... yet I see this kind of stuff receiving air time in our society. The liberal saying that it takes a village to raise a child, can be turned right around to say that it takes a village to teach sin and acceptance of it. I am not one to go around bashing homosexuals - I barely ever even talk of it - however, that doesn't mean that I am in any way obligated to teach my children to hang around with those who profess such a lifestyle or that it is ok. It just isn't true, and as Christians we can never teach that. While that might cause those with SSA to feel a constant tension in their life, I suppose that is true for all of us who must battle with sinful temptations. Else fornication would be A-ok, adultery would be A-ok, etc. Anyone who won't repent of an such relationships should also be subject to church discipline if the bishop finds out.

The sin of intolerance is truly awful. I disagree that these families are any more sinful than any other families by nature of having a gay couple as the heads of household. 

The eating of shellfish is called an abomination in scripture too. But I trust that doesn't stop you from eating at Red Lobster.

At some point do we go beyond crass literalism? And not just when it is convenient for us to do so? We're very nuanced in how we approach divorce, after all. We don't treat that like adultery. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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.

Then my family isn't a family.  Me and my two kids are not a family.  We are not sealed to each other so this little unit that I have is just a counterfeit family?   Yes..unit is insulting.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, true.  I just believe that many of the laws that you attribute to God are really laws of men.  That's where the difference occurs.  We each have to go by what the spirit tells us and I believe God will not force those who love each other to live apart for eternity.

Does God love all his children?
Has he eternally cast many out from his presence for violation of law?

Our understanding of love is not correct.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Which was the right thing to do.

AGAIN, this type of situation DOES NOT APPLY.

sheesh...

All I'm really saying is don't let the ideal become the enemy of the good. Kids need family. If a heterosexual married couple can do it. Ideal. If a homosexual married couple can do it. Good. The kids get parents that love and care for them either way. 

We'd do it again, in a heartbeat, if the situation were to occur that our Grandkids needed parents. We're still family. When I was much younger(about 10) my uncle and aunt were in a serious automobile accident, and nearly died. My mom and dad took their children in for several months while their parents recovered. They were and are family.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does God love all his children?
Has he eternally cast many out from his presence for violation of law?

I don't know.  I know what the stories say about the 1/3 that were cast out and I know the Mormon doctrine taught about this.  

But, I still believe that God will not cast out good, loving couples or force them to stay apart for eternity.  I have my own beliefs and I have my own testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It's definitely not a letter of the law, orthodox testimony.  I'll fully admit and own that.

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ERMD]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know what you believe, JLHPROF, and I respect that.  However, I believe that God will allow each of us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us after this life too).  I do not believe that God will force anyone to be with another person, nor will he force them to stay apart for eternity if they truly love each other.

I know that differs greatly from what you believe.  But, I do believe this.

Is there a scriptural basis for this, or have you created this belief on your own?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Is there a scriptural basis for this, or have you created this belief on your own?

Well you see, I believe that scriptures were written by men.  Of course I know many of the teachings are righteous, good, moral ways to live my life and I adhere to them.  But, I do not believe that many of the stories are literal or are factual history and I believe many of the laws attributed to God (past and present) came from man.

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ERMD]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then my family isn't a family.  Me and my two kids are not a family.  We are not sealed to each other so this little unit that I have is just a counterfeit family?   Yes..unit is insulting.

Sealing is not the issue.  The counterfeit lies in homosexual pairings masquerading as marriages, as the Lord has defined it.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Sealing is not the issue.  The counterfeit lies in homosexual pairings masquerading as marriages, as the Lord has defined it.

That's an assumption big enough to drive a truck through

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Sealing is not the issue.  The counterfeit lies in homosexual pairings masquerading as marriages, as the Lord has defined it.

IIRC, you just stated that in order for a family to be an actual family, it has to be an "eternal family".  Doesn't that mean sealing is the issue or at least your issue?

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The sin of intolerance is truly awful.

Yes, to be intolerant of others because of prejudices is wrong. However, I will always be "prejudiced" against sin. 

1 Corinthians 6:18

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

The scriptures teach to flee from sin - not to tolerate it. That is not being scripturally "intolerant."

Quote

I disagree that these families are any more sinful than any other families by nature of having a gay couple as the heads of household. 

I disagree with your disagreement then. It may not be any more sinful than living in an adulterous family, but it is more sinful than living in a monogamous family ordained by God as husband-wife-and seed, because as husband and wife, they are not sinning every time they go to bed.

Quote

The eating of shellfish is called an abomination in scripture too. But I trust that doesn't stop you from eating at Red Lobster.

At some point do we go beyond crass literalism? And not just when it is convenient for us to do so? We're very nuanced in how we approach divorce, after all. We don't treat that like adultery. 

I'm sorry you feel literalism is crass, but sometimes the Bible is meant to be literal, and sometimes it is symbolic. I'm not sure of the purpose of including shellfish in the dietary prohibitions was, but I'm sure it had some kind of spiritual significance which is perhaps not yet understood - just like most of the different types of sacrifice are not understood.

[california boy]

I think that some of you are going to have to adjust your view of the Mormon Church in these modern times.  Evidently the church is now in the business of breaking up families as a church policy.  In the name of God, gay couples are not families, but satan's counterfeit.  But those families are not alone.  Only Mormon families sealed in the temple are real families that God actually accepts.  Every other family on earth is not really a family in God's eyes and is counterfeit to what God approves of.  If you don't believe that, then you are going against the Proclamation n the Family, denying the prophet of God and God himself.  It is all very clear.  God has spoken.   

Hope I got that right JHLProf and ERMD.  

 

[ERMD]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

IIRC, you just stated that in order for a family to be an actual family, it has to be an "eternal family".  Doesn't that mean sealing is the issue or at least your issue?

.

That is not what I stated.  Read it again.