Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe. But that exclusivity means my niece and Grandnephew aren't part of my family that I love very much.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

More awesome publicity coming from implementation of the policy.  Go Team LDS!

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/25/same-sex-couple-claims-lds-church-congregation-harassing-them-over-disciplinary-council/

 

I saw this earlier in the day..This isn't the end of it I fear.  Yeah..go team go.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Jeanne

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hasn't this already been linked to here?

Doesn't matter.  The gross over-use and under-understand of the term "harass" makes the article worthless.  It's like the tenant who claims harassment when the landlord drops off an eviction notice after getting stiffed 3 months in a row.  The tenant weeps on the 10:00 news that the landlord is harassing him, when, really, the landlord is just following the procedure the legislature established in the place of the old XIXth Century breaking the door in, throwing the stuff in the street, and beating the recalcitrant tenant who refuses to leave with clubs.  The latter is harassment.  The former is simply following the procedural steps in a peaceful manner.

Fact is, the Church has a legitimate interest in determining whether her parishioner really desires to leave, that desire is a long-term and not a momentary desire, and whether, should the parishioner desire to come back into the fold, there are impediments in behavior, etc that would affect the future decision to permit re-entry.  And it's best to do that while memories are fresh and witnesses and other evidence, if any, available.

Getting a visit or letter that seeks clarification is not overly burdensome.  And it is definitely not harassment.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Selfish implies we have something to gain from it. What is this gain?

Personal satisfaction of having cast out the infidels and defended one's commitment to the current orthodoxy, I would guess

Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, Kemara said:

So you are an eternity denier then? You believe that gay marrieds should be totally okay with death being the end? You don't believe that gay marrieds should place any importance on an eternal relationship with their children? Do you even know what the word selfish means? 

I have no reason to think that gay families will be together for any shorter duration than straight families. Certainly cutting their relationships short isn't helping anyone. Certainly not their children. 

[Gray]

Here's what Paul says to the Corinthians: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

This is entirely contradictory to Mormon teachings on marriage. But of course we must take Paul at face value when he talks about homosexuality. 

 

(Rev, this was part 2 of my response to you - for some reason I've been unable to post it until now - and still can't format it correctly!)

Edited February 26, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Doesn't matter.  The gross over-use and under-understand of the term "harass" makes the article worthless.  It's like the tenant who claims harassment when the landlord drops off an eviction notice after getting stiffed 3 months in a row.  The tenant weeps on the 10:00 news that the landlord is harassing him, when, really, the landlord is just following the procedure the legislature established in the place of the old XIXth Century breaking the door in, throwing the stuff in the street, and beating the recalcitrant tenant who refuses to leave with clIubs.  The latter is harassment.  The former is simply following the procedural steps in a peaceful manner.

Fact is, the Church has a legitimate interest in determining whether her parishioner really desires to leave, that desire is a long-term and not a momentary desire, and whether, should the parishioner desire to come back into the fold, there are impediments in behavior, etc that would affect the future decision to permit re-entry.  And it's best to do that while memories are fresh and witnesses and other evidence, if any, available.

Getting a visit or letter that seeks clarification is not overly burdensome.  And it is definitely not harassment.

I am sure that the landlord doesn't have friends hanging around stores to plead their cause.  And it is definitely not harassment from the church..those women should just shut up and leave the church alone..which is what they were doing in the first place.  It does matter..and to state that the article is worthless speaks volumes for some of the mindsets that this policy has instigated.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Doesn't matter.  The gross over-use and under-understand of the term "harass" makes the article worthless.  It's like the tenant who claims harassment when the landlord drops off an eviction notice after getting stiffed 3 months in a row.  The tenant weeps on the 10:00 news that the landlord is harassing him, when, really, the landlord is just following the procedure the legislature established in the place of the old XIXth Century breaking the door in, throwing the stuff in the street, and beating the recalcitrant tenant who refuses to leave with clubs.  The latter is harassment.  The former is simply following the procedural steps in a peaceful manner.

Fact is, the Church has a legitimate interest in determining whether her parishioner really desires to leave, that desire is a long-term and not a momentary desire, and whether, should the parishioner desire to come back into the fold, there are impediments in behavior, etc that would affect the future decision to permit re-entry.  And it's best to do that while memories are fresh and witnesses and other evidence, if any, available.

Getting a visit or letter that seeks clarification is not overly burdensome.  And it is definitely not harassment.

Putting myself in the other guy's place for a moment, if I had long ago lost interest in the Church of Jesus Christ, stopped attending services and embraced a lifestyle incompatible with membership in said Church, what would I do if I were notified that a disciplinary council was being convened for me?

Answer: Probably respond with a terse, if not polite, letter informing the presiding authority that he was free to go ahead with the council but that I would not be attending and that, as far as I was concerned, the church was free to drop me from the membership rolls.

And that would be that.

Harassment? Nah.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have no reason to think that gay families will be together for any shorter duration than straight families. Certainly cutting their relationships short isn't helping anyone. Certainly not their children. 

So ... if they disbelieve LDS teachings on the definition and duration of the family unit anyway, why resist excommunication?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's what Paul says to the Corinthians: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

This is entirely contradictory to Mormon teachings on marriage. But of course we must take Paul at face value when he talks about homosexuality. 

 

(Rev, this was part 2 of my response to you - for some reason I've been unable to post it until now - and still can't format it correctly!)

Oh...I am a widow..darn..I have such passion..can't control myself...Paul would be so disappointed in me!!

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am sure that the landlord doesn't have friends hanging around stores to plead their cause.  And it is definitely not harassment from the church..those women should just shut up and leave the church alone..which is what they were doing in the first place.  It does matter..and to state that the article is worthless speaks volumes for some of the mindsets that this policy has instigated.

Hanging around stores?

You mean the hardware store employee? That does seem a bit weird on its face.

I suspect what has happened is that the hardware store employee holds the calling of ward executive secretary. As anyone familiar with a ward organization knows, it is one of the duties of the executive secretary to contact people and schedule appointments for them to meet with the bishop. Perhaps this guy saw the individual in the store and decided he would approach her then and there rather than have to make the phone call later.

If that's what happened, it seems far less mysterious and sinister, don't you think?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

2 hours ago, mtomm said:

We've tightened up the meaning of family so much in this discussion that it's pretty much down to only sealed couples and their biological children are the only non-counterfeit families.

Have "we"?

15 years ago, you and I shared a common vocabulary.  Politics intervened and created a new thing in the world.  That thing is a falsification, as others have stated.  Nobody is "tightening up" any meanings.  Somebody else made the attempt, largely successful as demonstrated in mtomm's posts, to make mensheviki out of bolsheviki.  Those whom you say have at some unidentified [by you] point "tightened up" the definition of a word, never changed.

Or do you disagree?

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hanging around stores?

You mean the hardware store employee? That does seem a bit weird on its face.

I suspect what has happened is that the hardware store employee holds the calling of ward executive secretary. As anyone familiar with a ward organization knows, it is one of the duties of the executive secretary to contact people and schedule appointments for them to meet with the bishop. Perhaps this guy saw the individual in the store and decided he would approach her then and there rather than have to make the phone call later.

If that's what happened, it seems far less mysterious and sinister, don't you think?

You do have a point.  But I still feel that the whole thing is an unnecessary intrusion on their lives..In order for this point to be valid, we would need clarification..did he introduce himself this way..or was just a ward member who called himself to duty?

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am sure that the landlord doesn't have friends hanging around stores to plead their cause.  And it is definitely not harassment from the church..those women should just shut up and leave the church alone..which is what they were doing in the first place.  It does matter..and to state that the article is worthless speaks volumes for some of the mindsets that this policy has instigated.

"Mindsets that this policy has instigated"?

What in the world does that mean?

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Mindsets that this policy has instigated"?

What in the world does that mean?

Come on, U. U is a pretty smart guy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You do have a point.  But I still feel that the whole thing is an unnecessary intrusion on their lives..In order for this point to be valid, we would need clarification..did he introduce himself this way..or was just a ward member who called himself to duty?

Could have been either way, I suppose. I'm reluctant to jump to a conclusion based on a one-sided rendition.

I'm just trying to read between the lines, having twice served as a ward executive secretary and being more than passingly acquainted with the duties of that calling.

 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could have been either way, I suppose. I'm reluctant to jump to a conclusion based on a one-sided rendition.

I'm just trying to read between the lines, having twice served as a ward executive secretary and being more than passingly acquainted with the duties of that calling.

 

I understand where you are coming from Scott.  My Dad also had that calling. 

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Mindsets that this policy has instigated"?

What in the world does that mean?

I don't know..I am just tired.  I know what I mean. 

[USU78]

42 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Come on, U. U is a pretty smart guy. 

[USU78]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't know..I am just tired.  I know what I mean. 

[Walden]

51 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Have "we"?

15 years ago, you and I shared a common vocabulary.  Politics intervened and created a new thing in the world.  That thing is a falsification, as others have stated.  Nobody is "tightening up" any meanings.  Somebody else made the attempt, largely successful as demonstrated in mtomm's posts, to make mensheviki out of bolsheviki.  Those whom you say have at some unidentified [by you] point "tightened up" the definition of a word, never changed.

Or do you disagree?

Oh please, the LDS church's classifications of marriage are just as eroded as modern society's....from polygamy to monogamy to changing views on interracial marriages, or even the changing policies for those involved in interracial marriages, the LDS church and it's adherents have no room to be lecturing other's on the eternal definition of marriage, as the church has promoted and demoted different definitions of marriage since the church's founding. My great, great, great grandfather had 12 wives, and was commanded that this was necessary to receive the fullness of blessings; try that today and you will be excommunicated from the LDS church. An interracial couple would have had a difficult time getting a temple marriage in 1977; by 1979, not so much.

USU, to state that the church's definition of marriage never changed is completely laughable.

 

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Have "we"?

15 years ago, you and I shared a common vocabulary.  Politics intervened and created a new thing in the world.  That thing is a falsification, as others have stated.  Nobody is "tightening up" any meanings.  Somebody else made the attempt, largely successful as demonstrated in mtomm's posts, to make mensheviki out of bolsheviki.  Those whom you say have at some unidentified [by you] point "tightened up" the definition of a word, never changed.

Or do you disagree?

So far in this thread I've read that the only family that is legit is the one God puts his seal of approval on. It's been stated that those REAL families are only those sealed in the temple. He only seals people in the temple if they can multiply and replenish the earth.  <My words by the way. Edited to add that I think the thing that is being implied with the reproduction talk is it really means people that have heterosexual penetration sex.

So by using God's definition as defined in these last few pages we have male/female couples sealed in the temple who have their own biological children. 

I'm not talking about the world's definition. I'm talking about God's (according to this thread.) 

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by mtomm

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Personal satisfaction of having cast out the infidels, I would guess

You really know how to hit me at home don't you?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Here's what Paul says to the Corinthians: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

This is entirely contradictory to Mormon teachings on marriage. But of course we must take Paul at face value when he talks about homosexuality. 

 

(Rev, this was part 2 of my response to you - for some reason I've been unable to post it until now - and still can't format it correctly!)

Specific counsel for that time, possibly only applying to missionaries. Probably because the dispensation was destined to be short. You could argue that applies to his warnings against homosexuality but that is why we have apostles and prophets to straighten this out for us as to what applies and what does not. They seem to be unanimous on the issue.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You really know how to hit me at home don't you?