Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[Calm]

There are a number of things in mortality that are not eternal and we have no problem calling them "family" in the Church.  The ward family is one, as Primary teachers we were taught to treat and consider the foster children in my last ward (several couples were long term caregivers) as members of those families even though in most cases there was no intent to eventually adopt.  Even my FHE group at college was called a family.  In the family defintion at lds.org they say even one person living alone can be called a familiy.

I don't see a requirement that the relationship must have the potential to be eternal in order to be called family.

I don't think people will be confused into thinking we anticipate relationships to be eternal in the unique way that some families can become if we label them as family.  I think we are very clear in our teachings of what is required for eternal ordinances to take place.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

That is not what I stated.  Read it again.

That's exactly what you stated, you wrote:

  "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."

Or are you now saying something different now?

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

 

You did not.  The part in bold is your extrapolation and is not a reflection of what I have said.

There is a cadre here that will spare no effort to misrepresent and misconstrue what is stated.  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are a number of things in mortality that are not eternal and we have no problem calling them "family" in the Church.  The ward family is one, as Primary teachers we were taught to treat and consider the foster children in my last ward (several couples were long term caregivers) as members of those families even though in most cases there was no intent to eventually adopt.  Even my FHE group at college was called a family.

I don't see a requirement that the relationship must have the potential to be eternal in order to be called family.

Yes!  And yet again, Calm is the voice of reason  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

You did not.  The part in bold is your extrapolation and is not a reflection of what I have said.

There is a cadre here that will spare no effort to misrepresent and misconstrue what is stated.  

...by themselves.

To be fair you were the one that went on about counterfeit families, attacking those who consider themselves families, and then justified it by alluding to eternal families. 

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's exactly what you stated, you wrote:

  "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."

Or are you now saying something different now?

Gay "marriage" is the subject.  "These units" refer to that subject.  There is no other mention in this statement of other family units, some of which I identified as examples in an earlier post. Thus, the statement that gay "marriages" (these units) are not eternal is exclusive to those units.  Other permutations of righteous (of which there are many in the eyes of the Lord, and I will not attempt to provide an exhaustive list because someone will come up with one that I left out) units can very well be eternal. 

[Rock_N_Roll]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

.

You are not alone, ALarson.  I too have my own testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am an RM, sealed in the temple, have held many callings in the church...and I agree with at least 99% of what you have said on this thread.  The scriptures, especially the bible, while containing many great teachings and examples, and in some cases even the word of God, was written by man and is certainly not infallible. I have a gay BIL, in CA, that has been married for many years.  His is a real family.  From what I gather from ERMD, 99.9% of all the families on earth today are not "real" families, because they have not been sealed in the temple.  Or am I misunderstanding? 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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."

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.

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.

Great, perhaps you can explain the church's tolerance for divorce and remarriage, which the scriptures define as adultery. Assuming that literalism is, after all, the key interpretive lens in which to view ancient literature. 

I notice that you're able to find some nuance around shellfish. If only gay families could get the same benefit of the doubt as shellfish gourmands. 

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Gay "marriage" is the subject.  "These units" refer to that subject.  There is no other mention in this statement of other family units, some of which I identified as examples in an earlier post. Thus, the statement that gay "marriages" (these units) are not eternal is exclusive to those units.  Other permutations of righteous (of which there are many in the eyes of the Lord, and I will not attempt to provide an exhaustive list because someone will come up with one that I left out) units can very well be eternal. 

Ok, but in order for a group to be a family, they do not need to have the potential of being an eternal family.  That is what you seemed to be stating and that is simply not true.

So, when you state that a gay couple with children are not a family because they are not an eternal family, that is not true.  They are a family.

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ERMD]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

.

 

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Ok, but in order for a group to be a family, they do not need to have the potential of being an eternal family.  That is what you seemed to be stating and that is simply not true.

So, when you state that a gay couple with children is not a family because they are not an eternal family, that is not true.  They are a family.

Read and understand the Proclamation.

[ERMD]

5 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

You are not alone, ALarson.  I too have my own testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am an RM, sealed in the temple, have held many callings in the church...and I agree with at least 99% of what you have said on this thread.  The scriptures, especially the bible, while containing many great teachings and examples, and in some cases even the word of God, was written by man and is certainly not infallible. I have a gay BIL, in CA, that has been married for many years.  His is a real family.  From what I gather from ERMD, 99.9% of all the families on earth today are not "real" families, because they have not been sealed in the temple.  Or am I misunderstanding? 

You are misunderstanding.  Nowhere did I state or allude to the above.  That is a ridiculous position.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Great, perhaps you can explain the church's tolerance for divorce and remarriage, which the scriptures define as adultery. Assuming that literalism is, after all, the key interpretive lens in which to view ancient literature. 

Not so if the husband leaves the wife or the wife leaves the husband. If the husband leaves the wife, she cannot commit adultery by remarrying. Scripture must be looked at as a whole.

Quote

I notice that you're able to find some nuance around shellfish. If only gay families could get the same benefit of the doubt as shellfish gourmands. 

No such luck here, because in the NT, Paul plainly reaffirms the OT law concerning homosexual acts, and that they still apply whereas the dietary laws were given to teach some kind of spiritual point, and didn't need to be followed literally. 

[Rock_N_Roll]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

You are misunderstanding.  Nowhere did I state or allude to the above.  That is a ridiculous position.

Then maybe you need to take a step back and re-evaluate how you are stating your opinion because it is obvious that it isn't just me that is getting that vibe from you. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Read and understand the Proclamation.

The Proclamation mentions one type of family unit.  There are many families that do not include a marriage between "A man and A woman".  They are still families.  Or do you disagree?  Some just have a Mother or just a Father (who were never married)....or a grandparent, uncle or aunt.

Do you believe that a couple living together and who have children and raise them together, and are all  together for many years, are not a family?  Is it the marriage part that you're hung up on here?  Or is it the potential to be eternal?

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

49 minutes ago, ERMD said:

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

It is a family if a group love each other...take care of each other and feel responsible to the well being of this group.  It is unified by love for each other which is what God has defined as family..is not your ward a ward family?  It is not fraud to care and love as parents and children do.

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Proclamation mentions one type of family unit.  There are many families that do not include a marriage between "A man and A woman".  They are still families.  Or do you disagree? 

Do you believe that a couple living together and who have children and raise them together, and are all  together for many years, are not a family?  Is it the marriage part that you're hung up on here?

The counterfeit is gay "marriage."  There is no potential for eternal increase for those two individuals in that state.  That union cannot exist in the eternities.  This all relates to the Proclamation which ties directly to the ordinances of the temple.

Are a single mom with kids, a childless couple, someone who takes in children from a relative who can't care for them, an atheist husband and wife with or without children families?  Of course they are.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not so if the husband leaves the wife or the wife leaves the husband. If the husband leaves the wife, she cannot commit adultery by remarrying. Scripture must be looked at as a whole.

No such luck here, because in the NT, Paul plainly reaffirms the OT law concerning homosexual acts, and that they still apply whereas the dietary laws were given to teach some kind of spiritual point, and didn't need to be followed literally. 

Yes, when it's our ox in the mire, it's much easier to see how scripture must be interpreted and taken into context rather than just read literally. That was my point. Although you can't really argue your point about divorce without appealing to OT laws rather than Jesus' teachings.

Given Paul's views on women speaking in church, his opposition to "traditional" marriage, and his views on grace and election, how do you justify the church's current doctrines on those things?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The counterfeit is gay "marriage."  There is no potential for eternal increase for those two individuals in that state.  That union cannot exist in the eternities.  This all relates to the Proclamation which ties directly to the ordinances of the temple.

Are a single mom with kids, a childless couple, someone who takes in children from a relative who can't care for them, an atheist husband and wife with or without children families?  Of course they are.

Yes, and so are gay couples (with or without children) a family.  All the reasons you give for them not being a family can also pertain to other groups that you state are indeed families. That's where your arguments and reasons fall apart here.

Maybe you believe that a gay couple will not be an "eternal family", but they are very much still a family.  

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The counterfeit is gay "marriage."  There is no potential for eternal increase for those two individuals in that state.  That union cannot exist in the eternities.  This all relates to the Proclamation which ties directly to the ordinances of the temple.

Are a single mom with kids, a childless couple, someone who takes in children from a relative who can't care for them, an atheist husband and wife with or without children families?  Of course they are.

I am not much of a scientist but it seems fairly obvious that even us lowly humans will someday be able to create other humans out of a test tube like we have been able to do for almost 20 years with animals like sheep.

Dolly

 

So obviously there is potential for eternal increase for those two individuals. You may not be comfortable with the process but it is there nonetheless.

 

[Ahab]

Good grief!

Let's just accept the fact that some people define things like "love" and "marriage" and "family" differently than some other people.  And some people aren't interested in having their definitions or understandings of those things changed.

I and most people I know define a family as primarily a Husband and a Wife, and secondarily any children they can create together.  Their own biological children.

From there it can branch out to a child who is first outside of that Husband's and Wife's family who is later adopted into their family through some legal or legislative process.  Not their child biologically because biologically that child is first a child of another Father and Mother who biologically will always be theirs and part of their family even though another Husband and Wife have adopted that child.

There are also some people who believe that any group of people who live in the same home is also a family, regardless of their biological or legal associations, and while a sweet idea in some sense that isn't what I and most people I know would call a real family. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Ahab
technicalities

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There are also some people who believe that any group of people who live in the same home is also a family, regardless of their biological or legal associations, and while a sweet idea in some sense that isn't what I and most people I know would call a real family. 

Wow.  I'll be sure to tell my neighbors who have been together for over 30 years and have adopted 4 children (3 with handicaps), that they are not a "real"  family. However, most people I know would consider them to be one of the best families on the block  

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

When people say "I want to go home"...that is where family is.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am not much of a scientist but it seems fairly obvious that even us lowly humans will someday be able to create other humans out of a test tube like we have been able to do for almost 20 years with animals like sheep.

Dolly

 

So obviously there is potential for eternal increase for those two individuals. You may not be comfortable with the process but it is there nonetheless.

 

Science has not yet been able to create children without a sperm and an egg. Two eggs or two sperm are not capable of doing it. 

Knowing that, which process (that is "there nonetheless") are you talking about?  I'm not sure I'm understanding you right. 

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, when it's our ox in the mire, it's much easier to see how scripture must be interpreted and taken into context rather than just read literally. That was my point. Although you can't really argue your point about divorce without appealing to OT laws rather than Jesus' teachings.

I think you need to reread what Jesus said then. There were exceptions. If the man committed adultery, then the woman did not sin in divorce and remarriage.

Quote

Given Paul's views on women speaking in church, his opposition to "traditional" marriage, and his views on grace and election, how do you justify the church's current doctrines on those things?

Paul was not opposed to traditional marriage. He was opposed to his students/followers marrying while on their missions. He also flat out said that what he told them was not by way of commandment - it was his preference or opinion. Paul was opposed to homosexual relationships, and said they were not natural, were against God's design, and were sinful. There really is no way around that. All the rationalization in the world won't change that. Paul's views on grace don't change it either - just the modern interpretation of it. Like the rest of the gospel, he clearly said we will be judged by our works, and that we should not sin - esp once we know the law. 

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members asinstruments of righteousness unto God.

 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Grace does not excuse the intentional sin - nor can it.