Glenn101 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 7 hours ago, CA Steve said: Glenn, Can you cite any examples of straight inactive members being disciplined for apostasy because they were engaging in immoral behavior? In your previous response to me you said Since you referenced the OT, I asked if you could provide a Biblical reference wherein homosexuality is defined as apostate behavior, which could not at the same time also define other sexual immortality as apostate behavior. My point being that whether or not we agree on if the Bible labels homosexual behavior as immoral, there seems to be little doubt that references to the Bible do not support labeling it, by itself as apostasy. In my opinion the recent changes to the church handbook wherein Gay marriage by a member or members is now officially defined as apostasy is not something that can be supported by the Bible without at the same time raising the question of why adultery, fornication or even divorce is not also so labeled. The word apostate or apostasy is not used in the KJV Bible. The Church's take on apostasy, as well as I can understand, occurs when a person who supposedly believes in the Church but espouses and follows doctrines or practices or tenets which have been averred by the Church leadership, to be false. Anyone currently living in a polygamous relationship and stating that the practice is still mandated would fall under this definition, and would be excommunicated if unrepentant. A person living in a sexually immoral relationship or being sexually immoral in general but not standing up and saying that it is not a sin, etc. would not be considered apostate, under that general definition. However, a member of the cChurch doing such and it being reported, would, depending on the nature of the offense(s) etc. would be excommunicated, generally speaking. I would imagine that the Korah would have been labelled an apostate if the Bible had used such terminology. I also imagine that any person who stood up and said that sin xyz was not a sin, but was only the pronouncement of a man who wanted to make a prince of himself would have been considered an apostate ( for as long as he was left alive) if the Bible had used such terminology. Glenn
Scott Lloyd Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's a pretty big leap to assume that the employee was the ward executive secretary. I see nothing there to think that's who they were. Maybe it was the executive secretary who began trying to set up an appointment with the Bishop after the incidents in the hardware store. Maybe the same guy in both instances. Or another possibility is that the guy in the store doesn't even know the bishop, is not even in the ward, and was merely being a zealous member missionary. A number of possibilities. To cast him as a witch hunter going after a couple of lesbians strikes me as trying too hard to find something to get outraged about.
Kemara Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: I think there are few gays that think they have a friend in the Mormon Church. I think that the church has few gays that are friends to it. However, the church would dearly love to be friends with all gays and has extended the invitation to become so. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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. How was it that the church tried to take away something that gays didn't have at the time? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: I know very few gays who like the church. Which is a pity because the church genuinely likes every single gay person on the planet. The unlimited invitation to join its ranks and participate fully in the church program is evidence of this fact. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: Did you think this war was only one sided?? Did you miss where I said, "War requires conflict between two parties..."? You need to put in a bit more effort if you want to discuss this issue. Perhaps your lack of attention is the reason you are so far behind on the topic. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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. Completely illogical. Who was on the offensive and attempting to change the status quo? Who was on the defensive and attempting to keep the status quo? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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? That depends on wether you have a selfish short-term vision that denies the love that these gay marrieds apparently have and the reality of eternity or not. In direct contrast to this selfish short-term vision, the church is inviting gays to align their lives in a manner that will give them the very best results for the longest duration of time...and you call that unwelcoming? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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. If hetero marriage became an apostate act then I would be in the same position as gay marrieds. Therefore, I would have the choice to accept the invitation of the church or reject it. The option is there and the choice can be made. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: How many bishops are on the hunt for inactive members who are living in sin and excommunicating them?? I have no idea at all, but it sounds like you do, please share all the juicy details. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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. You are dead right and why shouldn't it apply to just gays? Gays are different from heterosexuals. Gay marriage is different to hetero marriage. So why on earth would you expect them to be treated the same? I am finding it hard to keep up with the gay perspective on this - gay pride, gay is the way, gay by birth proud by choice - yet you don't want to be treated as gays. After all the protests and the court battles what you want from the church is for it to deny gay uniqueness, deny gay identity - what you want is to be treated like heterosexuals. Gay and fabulous? Apparently you don't think so. Is this a matter of self-loathing? I'm beginning to think that you might not be gay at all, you just really like rainbows. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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. This position denies historical and scriptural reality. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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? I get the idea from our previous discussions on the matter. Sure, you accept the church has a position, but you don't like it, don't agree that it is correct, don't believe it is right and believe that Jesus Christ could be in favour of gay marriage - aka begrudgingly. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: Violence to logic? What are you talking about. What have I said that is not exactly the position of the church? Again, you need to put in a little more effort. I thought this subject was important to you? I said that you had done violence to logic in our previous discussions. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: Does the church offer any other alternative to gay married couples? You want an alternative offer to eternal life? I'm all for thinking big and going for broke, but I think you are being a little excessive in this case. Why aren't you satisfied with what everyone else is offered? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: 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?? The hope of eternal life. That's the same hope that is being offered to every other person on the planet. Is that not enough for you? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: Seriously? You really think the policy will change through prayer? I guess it is possible. So you agree with me then, good, because disagreeing would deny historical and scriptural reality. On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: It only took 150 years for blacks to be allowed for their families to be sealed. I will be long dead by then. So you being gay is not a long term thing then? So you're commitment to this issue ends with your death? So you're concern with this issue doesn't go beyond yourself? On 26/02/2016 at 7:07 PM, california boy said: Do you see any hope??? In addition to the hope I have already shared? Absolutely! 2
Calm Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 California boy, if a church member got married polygamously in a country where it was legal, what do you think the Church would tell him or her were the options and how do you see that as different than gay marriage (given that in both cases the marriage is legal in the eyes of the country, but against God's law in the eyes of the Church)? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 6:03 AM, 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. What "families?" I know it's highly unpopular to say so, but the position of the Church is that same sex couples are not "families." And the sooner all the closet apostates (naming no names, of course) realise that isn't going to change, the better it will be for all concerned.
ALarson Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe the same guy in both instances. Or another possibility is that the guy in the store doesn't even know the bishop, is not even in the ward, and was merely being a zealous member missionary. A number of possibilities. To cast him as a witch hunter going after a couple of lesbians strikes me as trying too hard to find something to get outraged about. Who has cast "him" as a witch hunter? I've also seen no "outrage". Such drama and exaggeration. It is just curious that after their encounter with this employee, they were contacted to meet with their Bishop. Again, it may just be coincidental or the two incidents could be connected. This person may or may not even be in their ward. The sisters seem to feel the two are connected. Without more detail, we simply do not know. . Edited February 28, 2016 by ALarson 1
JulieM Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: What "families?" I know it's highly unpopular to say so, but the position of the Church is that same sex couples are not "families." That's horrible to say and has already been discussed here. They are very much a family. When has the church ever stated that they are not families (why the scare quotes above when using this word?)? If you think it's in the proclamation, you're wrong ( unless you believe every other type of family not mentioned in the proclamation is also not a family). Edited February 28, 2016 by JulieM 3
Rivers Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: What "families?" I know it's highly unpopular to say so, but the position of the Church is that same sex couples are not "families." And the sooner all the closet apostates (naming no names, of course) realise that isn't going to change, the better it will be for all concerned. Actually I would argue that the church does acknowledge gay marriage households as families. One purpose of the new policy is to avoid complications for the child of same-sex parents. The church doesn't want create a division in that family until that child becomes an adult and can rightfully make his/her own decision. I believe the church is trying to do what's best for the same-sex couple and their child because its a family. Its just the type of family that is not in harmony with church doctrine. Edited February 28, 2016 by Rivers 4
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 5:13 PM, Gray said: They've certainly not been shy about sharing their opinions, just as Paul was not. Like Paul, their opinions are informed by their environment and generation. But of course you, being independent of your environment and generation, know better. 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 If they've been excommunicated for 10 years, I don't see a point for a priesthood authority to bug them now. 1
Yirgacheffe Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: From my perspective it seems far more likely that the guy in the store is the ward executive secretary trying to set up appointments for the bishop. It's possible, I suppose, that he's a busybody on a witch hunt, but wouldn't that strike you as bizarre behavior? It would me, and certainly not typical of Church members I know or have known. From my perspective the hardware store guys behavior is bizarre no matter his position in the church. I've never heard of other churches tracking down people who haven't attended their church in years and then disciplining them for unbecoming behavior. Seems to me that the bishop and his secretary should have better and more pressing matters to attend to rather than making a stink over someone who hasn't graced their doors in over a decade. 1
Calm Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: If they've been excommunicated for 10 years... If I understand the story correctly, only one of them has been excommunicated. The other one has not and was apparently on church membership lists.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, JulieM said: That's horrible to say and has already been discussed here. It doesn't matter if it's "horrible." The matters is that it is true. 1 hour ago, JulieM said: They are very much a family. They are in no sense a family. If you disagree, then please tell me: which of them is the father of the children? 1 hour ago, JulieM said: When has the church ever stated that they are not families (why the scare quotes above when using this word?)? If you think it's in the proclamation, you're wrong ( unless you believe every other type of family not mentioned in the proclamation is also not a family). Any Latter-day Saint who reads the Proclamation with what Moroni calls "real intent" understands that same sex pairings are not families. They are, at best, a clumsy counterfeit.
Calm Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) The couple didn't seem to understand what the hardward store employee was suggesting from what I heard. I got the vibe that it felt weird to them but not aggressive, just inappropriate. What if the guy was actually being supportive of them and was just warning them that since one of them was listed as a member (as anyone in the ward could see if she was in the member directory as she would have been, right?) that someone from the Church might be coming around to talk to them and he didn't want them to be surprised by it, but prepared. And perhaps he was embarrassed about it happening, trying to make apologies and explanations and whatever, so was confused. Or maybe he was their new Home Teacher (I don't remember them saying they were on a "no contact" list) and thought it was easier to break the ice then instead of coming up to the door. He could have been a real jerk and just wanted to ruin their day. There are lots of possible reasons the employee chose to speak up. He will most likely be chided by his employer and will not be doing again. If his employer was ticked off enough about it, he may have even lost his job if it was a low level one in a big store and the employer was afraid whatever happened might be seen as having his support. Edited February 28, 2016 by Calm
Calm Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said: Seems to me that the bishop and his secretary should have better and more pressing matters to attend to rather than making a stink over someone who hasn't graced their doors in over a decade. We just got a new bishop and ward boundary changes and he has been doing some proactive stuff to get to know the members of the ward (he was in the smaller section of the combination), including having family pictures on the ward's private website and getting together with members who do not attend as much, like myself and my daughter. Perhaps this guy was a new bishop and going through his list and seeing what the needs were for each of his ward. Or perhaps the new policy has given him the excuse to what he has wanted to do ever since the family moved into his neighbourhood ten years ago...kick them out of the Church and maybe if he is lucky, they will leave as well. Again....so many reasons why this might be happening. There are only two things I see as unusual, not fitting into the context myself...one is the hardward employee. It isn't an appropriate place and shouldn't have happened there...but doesn't make it newsworthy. I've seen a lot more inappropriate things happening in stores than that and it never got on the news...which leads to the second thing Second thing is I don't get why if they had so little contact with the Church and so little interest in having contact or attention drawn to them, why they made the effort to call the local news to get the attention for their situation. It seems contradictory. If the big thing was they didn't want attention, why the news?
Yirgacheffe Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 15 minutes ago, Calm said: We just got a new bishop and ward boundary changes and he has been doing some proactive stuff to get to know the members of the ward (he was in the smaller section of the combination), including having family pictures on the ward's private website and getting together with members who do not attend as much, like myself and my daughter. Perhaps this guy was a new bishop and going through his list and seeing what the needs were for each of his ward. Or perhaps the new policy has given him the excuse to what he has wanted to do ever since the family moved into his neighbourhood ten years ago...kick them out of the Church and maybe if he is lucky, they will leave as well. Again....so many reasons why this might be happening. There are only two things I see as unusual, not fitting into the context myself...one is the hardward employee. It isn't an appropriate place and shouldn't have happened there...but doesn't make it newsworthy. I've seen a lot more inappropriate things happening in stores than that and it never got on the news...which leads to the second thing Second thing is I don't get why if they had so little contact with the Church and so little interest in having contact or attention drawn to them, why they made the effort to call the local news to get the attention for their situation. It seems contradictory. If the big thing was they didn't want attention, why the news? Why didn't the new bishop just talk to the old one? Frankly I can understand why they called the media, they told the members of the church who contacted them to leave them alone. But no, hardware guy persisted, a number of phone calls ensued, and people came to their home. In other words all of a sudden the church is bothering them, again why? After all those years of silence from the church all of a sudden they take it upon themselves to bother people who haven't been to church since they were kids. And again I've never heard of this happening in any other church, other churches interact with people who actually attend, they don't spend time tracking down and disciplining people who the last time attended church were with their parents. I know a number of people whose parents bounced them around a few churches growing up, not a single one of them has ever been contacted by one of the churches their parents involved them in. Had anyone of those churches done so they would have found it unnerving and creepy. 1
Calm Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 Quote Why didn't the new bishop just talk to the old one? Most new bishops I know have a goal of getting to know the people in the ward, including becoming aware of those less active and even do no contact, not to torment any one, but to ensure that needs are met. Most I know are pretty good at reading when they are not wanted and they do not push others to make contact with those who express no contact desire, save once a year doorstep visit with a 'perhaps you would like to resign if we annoy you and if not, is there anything we can do for you'. I need to back and listen again as the way you tell the story isn't how I remember it which was just hardware guy, a few phone calls and then delivering the letters at the door. Perhaps I missed something.
Yirgacheffe Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 29 minutes ago, Calm said: Most new bishops I know have a goal of getting to know the people in the ward, including becoming aware of those less active and even do no contact, not to torment any one, but to ensure that needs are met. Most I know are pretty good at reading when they are not wanted and they do not push others to make contact with those who express no contact desire, save once a year doorstep visit with a 'perhaps you would like to resign if we annoy you and if not, is there anything we can do for you'. I need to back and listen again as the way you tell the story isn't how I remember it which was just hardware guy, a few phone calls and then delivering the letters at the door. Perhaps I missed something. Quote 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. That's why Leisha was surprised when a hardware store employee reportedly approached her two separate times. "He continued to tell us that there were some things that the Mormon Church needed to talk to us about," she recounted. She said she told the man, "We don't want to be bothered, we have no interest." Then, they said, came a number of phone calls asking to meet with the bishop. The two said they declined, and that's when members of the Church reportedly came to their home, with letters. The question is, why after more than a decade of no contact between the parties (and all previous contact was a child in church) did the church suddenly feel the need to insert themselves in the lives of people who never attended? Other churches don't do this, and most people I know would find being twice accosted by hardware guy, a number of phone calls and a home visit by members of a church I never attended by choice way beyond the pale, particularly so when they tossed you out 15 years ago.
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 11:38 PM, Calm said: I assume you don't actually mean they should be holding disciplinary courts for nonmembers, but just to clarify I am asking since this is how "discipline" is being used in this thread by others. My Bishop uses spankings as his punishment of choice for nonmembers..
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 2:31 AM, ERMD said: Same-sex couples are not married, and a same-sex couple raising children is not a family. The law might disagree with you. Just because the LDS Church doesn't like something doesn't mean they don't exist. 1
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 3:57 AM, mtomm said: Exactly how does a bishop discipline a non-member? As I noted earlier. Spankings are most effective. It really grabs their attention.
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 8:08 PM, ERMD said: Sealing is not the issue. The counterfeit lies in homosexual pairings masquerading as marriages, as the Lord has defined it. I wonder why people occasionally believe the LDS Church is creating hate. It is a mystery to me.... 1
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 1:43 AM, Walden said: 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. Thank You!
california boy Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 11 hours ago, Calm said: Are you aware that they don't baptize people who are in polygamous marriages and do not try to encourage them to dissolve the families? What is the difference? The Church has never encouraged people to divorce spouses who are opposed to temple marriage or to abandon their families if the spouse refuses to allow them to get baptized or have the kids baptized. The policy has always been to keep the family intact. If a member for awhile distances themselves from the Church and living a righteous life and during that time marries a nonmember who is not willing to convert and then s/he later returns to belief and finds that she/he wants a temple marriage, they are not just told that as part of the process of repentance they should dissolve the marriage so they can get all the blessings they once counted as unimportant immediately. They must live with the consequences of their decisions by making the best of their choices, including if possible having a wonderful nonsealed marriage. I do not know if this is what is or will be taught to gay marriage participants, but I don't see much difference in their situations. They have made choices in their lives and if they have made commitments to others that depend upon them, they should live up to those commitments until they reach a time where those individuals no longer need them. Your post is not really relivant. I am sure the church will not allow gay married couples to join the church just like they do not allow polygamous couples to join the church. What we are talking about here is the church actively asking existing members to break up their marriage if they are in a gay relationship. Does the church ask polygamous couples where one or more are members to break up their marriage? I personally don't know what the policy is. I do know that divorce is ugly and children are the collateral damage. It is a shame that the church does not see that when going after these gay families. Perhaps like some on this board they rationalize it by pretending they aren't really families. But they are still children who love their parents that are being torn apart. Not sounding much like a gospel of love to a lot of people. But hey, I am first to admit that I have a different opinion of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is. I would leave them be, and sort it out, like so many other things, in the next life. 1
USU78 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Calm said: If the big thing was they didn't want attention, why the news? Narcissism or histrionics? Edited February 28, 2016 by USU78
Recommended Posts