Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

People's feelings can change when they feel they have been singled out and treated unfairly.  I'd imagine these women would still just be minding their own business and staying silent, if they had not been sought out and called into a court for disciplinary purposes.  

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Kemara said:

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.  

How was it that the church tried to take away something that gays didn't have at the time?

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. 

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.

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?

To answer your question, it was the church that went on the offense to attack the status quo.  Gay marriage was LEGAL in California under the California constitution.  Prop 8 took away that LEGAL and legitimate civil right from gay couples.  A constitutional right that virtually every single federal judge in the country confirmed as well as the Supreme Court of the United States.  Arguing that gay couples should not fight for their constitutional rights is a very bad argument.  Should slaves not have argued for their rights?  Should woman not have argued for their rights?  Gays did not become hostile to any church genuinely likes every single gay person on the planet.  Gays became hostile towards the church when the church STARTED to attack them by working to take away their legal civil rights.  Insulting me about my reading comprehension does not help your misunderstanding of what actually occurred.  

Quote

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? 

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.

This is a religious opinion.  I have already stated over and over again that the church is entitled to any religious opinion it feel is right.  I have no problem with the church excommunicating whoever it wants from it's organization.  I do find breaking up families to be a particular ugly religious belief.  But that does not mean the church should not be able to force divorce of families as condition of membership.  

Quote

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.

I also have no problem with the church being prejudice against gays.  Once again, the church can treat it's members any way it chooses.  They should just be honest about it rather than so many trying to deny that this is the case.  It is the honesty that I find immoral in a church.  You however are speaking up against those that claim equal treatment of gays in the church.  I applaud you for that.

Quote

 

This position denies historical and scriptural reality.

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.

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.

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?

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?

 

Quote

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? 

I am afraid you are making assumptions that are simply not true.  I have been posting on this board for several years.  You will not find ONE post where I have not said that the church has a religious right to teach whatever doctrine it wants.  I also HAVE NO IDEA how God feels about gay marriage.  I have no idea how God will judge his gay children.  I offer no alternative to eternal life.  Never have.  It is all just a guess.  What I do know is that I have no desire to be married to a woman for eternity.  So I will pass on what is offered to every other person by the Mormon church.

What I do have a strong opinion on is in protecting anyone's civil rights guaranteed them by the constitution of the United States.  And when ANY organization attacks anyones civil rights, no matter what their religious beliefs are, then they need to be stopped. Look.  I don't think anyone in the gay community is surprised that the church is trying to get gay families to divorce or be excommunicated.  Given the church's track record against gays civil rights, the churches religious beliefs towards gays should be no surprise.  Most gays that read the article about the church going after this gay couple in the Advocate shrug their shoulders and say hey what else is new.  The church attacking gay couples.  It is not like it is coming out of nowhere.  I am betting that you could not find a single gay person or actually any person outside the church who is surprised by this latest tacit.  And actually probably most members are not surprised by this happening.  

[Sleeper Cell]

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 11:23 AM, CA Steve said:

While I was just responding to Bluebell's question about why this case is interesting, I am curious if you can provide some Biblical justification for defining homosexual marriage as apostasy that would not also apply to sexual immorality between straight married people.

As far as I know, virtually nobody denies that those who engage in the latter are sinning.  But there seems to be a number (and according to some of them, a growing number) of good church members who are arguing that those who have entered into SSM are not sinning.  And, if memory serves, aren’t some even predicting that as younger LDS become more accustomed to seeing gay LDS enter into SSM, an increasing number will become convinced  that the church should accept SSM?  
 
Isn’t the essence of “apostasy” not merely believing false doctrine, but influencing others to believe false doctrine?  

 

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

As far as I know, virtually nobody denies that those who engage in the latter are sinning.  But there seems to be a number (and according to some of them, a growing number) of good church members who are arguing that those who have entered into SSM are not sinning.  And, if memory serves, aren’t some even predicting that as younger LDS become more accustomed to seeing gay LDS enter into SSM, an increasing number will become convinced  that the church should accept SSM? 

That is exactly what is happening.  The argument that "can you provide some Biblical justification for defining homosexual marriage as apostasy" continues to rear its head because we have changed OUR definition of marriage as a Church.  Accepting civil marriages as equally valid with priesthood marriages has led to this argument being used.  Because in truth, there is ZERO difference between a civil heterosexual marriage and a civil homosexual marriage.  The authority binding both marriages is the same and there is nothing in the civil laws that prevent either from occurring.

Until we recognize that true marriage is a gospel ordinance, not a civil union, even members of the Church will continue to be able to make that argument, that SSM is bound by the same authority as heterosexual marriage.  And some will continue to pressure the Church to accept both since there really isn't a difference.
Until we recognize that there is actually no such thing as SSM it will continue to creep among members.
 

Quote

Isn’t the essence of “apostasy” not merely believing false doctrine, but influencing others to believe false doctrine?  

Not really.  Apostasy is moving away from truth, regardless of whether it is alone or with others.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dragons lay asleep.

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

To answer your question, it was the church that went on the offense to attack the status quo.  Gay marriage was LEGAL in California under the California constitution.  Prop 8 took away that LEGAL and legitimate civil right from gay couples.  A constitutional right that virtually every single federal judge in the country confirmed as well as the Supreme Court of the United States.  

All except for the fact that SSM was not legal in California until 16 June 2008. Proposition 8 was passed in November 2008 in response to the change to the status quo.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Arguing that gay couples should not fight for their constitutional rights is a very bad argument.  

And who exactly made that argument? More effort please.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Should slaves not have argued for their rights?  Should woman not have argued for their rights?  

And in doing so would they have been arguing against the status quo? Wether it was right or wrong, good or bad, is not in question, the question is who is going against the status quo?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Gays did not become hostile to any church genuinely likes every single gay person on the planet.  

Then why the hostility toward the LDS church then? You just contradicted yourself.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Gays became hostile towards the church when the church STARTED to attack them by working to take away their legal civil rights.

Hostility toward the church started in at least by the mid-1980's. Also, the church responded to an attack on the status quo, it attacked no one.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Insulting me about my reading comprehension does not help your misunderstanding of what actually occurred.  

And who exactly attacked your reading comprehension? I have no doubt whatsoever that you have excellent reading comprehension. What I actually asked was for you to put in a bit more effort. Your reading comprehension does not match up with the effort you put in to this discussion. You incorrectly accusing me of insulting your reading comprehension is just another example of your lack of effort and interest in this topic.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I do find breaking up families to be a particular ugly religious belief. 

This is a religious opinion and one that is based on a very selfish short-term vision. What exactly is so ugly about a church extending the invitation for eternal life?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I also have no problem with the church being prejudice against gays.  

Except that it isn't being prejudice against gays, ironically it is you and all those that think like you that are prejudiced against gays. You want the church to reject the uniqueness of gays and gay marriage, you would deny gays their unique, and what you believe to be innate, identity - you want the church to treat gays as something they are not. You are the one who is prejudice. The church is quite happy to acknowledge the uniqueness of gays.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

They should just be honest about it rather than so many trying to deny that this is the case.

As demonstrated your position is false, it is in fact you and all who think like you that are prejudice and dishonest.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You however are speaking up against those that claim equal treatment of gays in the church.  I applaud you for that.

Except of course that I am doing no such thing. I think heterosexuals should be treated equally. I think gays should be treated equally. Both these groups of people are different and I acknowledge and give recognition to those differences. You on the other hand do not, you do not want gays to be acknowledged as gays, you want gays to be acknowledged for what and who they are not. No "gay pride" from you, no "gay is the way" from you, no "gay by birth proud by choice" from you. Gay shame, gay is not the way, gay by birth ashamed by choice is what we get from you.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am afraid you are making assumptions that are simply not true.  I have been posting on this board for several years.  You will not find ONE post where I have not said that the church has a religious right to teach whatever doctrine it wants.  

 And who exactly said any different? More effort please.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I also HAVE NO IDEA how God feels about gay marriage.

And who exactly said any different? More effort please. What I actually said was that you, "...believe that Jesus Christ could be in favour of gay marriage..." This is your position isn't it, or have you changed your mind since we last discussed this specific issue and you stretched reason and logic beyond all reasonable lengths to justify it?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have no idea how God will judge his gay children.  I offer no alternative to eternal life.  Never have.  It is all just a guess.  

This is only your opinion, an opinion that I assume is biased toward your life choices. Unfortunately for you and all who think like you, eternal life is not just a guess and the invitation has been extended to you and every single other gay person on the planet. That you reject it is to your detriment and I am saddened by it.  I am saddened by your short term view and by the selfish attitude you have toward gay marrieds and their children.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

What I do know is that I have no desire to be married to a woman for eternity.  

How can someone who demonstrates such an incredibly short term view on one hand demonstrate an incredibly long term view on the other. Does your view that its "all just a guess" not apply to infinite time? I understand what you are trying to say, and believe it or not I have a huge amount of sympathy (and I don't mean that in a patronising or condescending manner) for the position, however, you cannot possibly know this.    

2 hours ago, california boy said:

What I do have a strong opinion on is in protecting anyone's civil rights guaranteed them by the constitution of the United States.  

You deserve to be applauded for this strong opinion. Now that gays have the guaranteed civil right to be married you should be celebrating your unique situation and not besmirch and organisation that acknowledges this unique situation by treating it in a unique manner. You are gay, not heterosexual, be who and what you are and don't ask for gays to be treated in a prejudice manner, don't ask for gays to be treated for who and what they are not.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 Look.  I don't think anyone in the gay community is surprised that the church is trying to get gay families to divorce or be excommunicated.  Given the church's track record against gays civil rights, the churches religious beliefs towards gays should be no surprise.  Most gays that read the article about the church going after this gay couple in the Advocate shrug their shoulders and say hey what else is new.  The church attacking gay couples.  It is not like it is coming out of nowhere.  I am betting that you could not find a single gay person or actually any person outside the church who is surprised by this latest tacit.  And actually probably most members are not surprised by this happening.  

I agree with you except for the context. The church wants every single gay person in the entire world to join its ranks, participate fully in its program and ultimately to enjoy eternal life. There are requirements and sacrifices to be made by every single person who accepts the invitation, gay people are not unique in that respect, but the invitation is there. It might have been extended to gays clumsily, rudely, insensitively, bombastically, ignorantly, arrogantly, in a threatening manner and in a manner that personally grates my goat but its there and the opportunity is there. You might have to be like Andy Dufresne and crawl through a river of muck to come out the other side and be gifted what is offered to every single person on this planet but don't you think it would be worth it?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Kemara

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

There are requirements and sacrifices to be made by every single person who accepts the invitation, gay people are not unique in that respect, but the invitation is there. It might have been extended to gays clumsily, rudely, insensitively, bombastically, ignorantly, arrogantly, in a threatening manner and in a manner that personally grates my goat but its there and the opportunity is there. 

Kemara, you certainly have a way with words! 

I can't imagine why more gay members aren't accepting this invitation! 

Edited February 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Kemara]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Kemara, you certainly have a way with words! 

I can't imagine why more gay members aren't accepting this invitation! 

Thank you, that was a nice thing for you to say.

Short sightedness and a requirement to be pandered too is my guess. How come you didn't highlight the words, "It might have been"?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Kemara

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Short sightedness and a requirement to be pandered too is my guess. How come you didn't highlight the words, "It might have been"?

No reason, I just highlighted the words that caught my attention.  I can go back and edit, if you'd like me to.

[Kemara]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No reason, I just highlighted the words that caught my attention.  I can go back and edit, if you'd like me to.

No not at all, I have absolutely no problem with you calling it how you see it.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

All except for the fact that SSM was not legal in California until 16 June 2008. Proposition 8 was passed in November 2008 in response to the change to the status quo.

And who exactly made that argument? More effort please.

And in doing so would they have been arguing against the status quo? Wether it was right or wrong, good or bad, is not in question, the question is who is going against the status quo?

Then why the hostility toward the LDS church then? You just contradicted yourself.

Hostility toward the church started in at least by the mid-1980's. Also, the church responded to an attack on the status quo, it attacked no one.

And who exactly attacked your reading comprehension? I have no doubt whatsoever that you have excellent reading comprehension. What I actually asked was for you to put in a bit more effort. Your reading comprehension does not match up with the effort you put in to this discussion. You incorrectly accusing me of insulting your reading comprehension is just another example of your lack of effort and interest in this topic.

This is a religious opinion and one that is based on a very selfish short-term vision. What exactly is so ugly about a church extending the invitation for eternal life?

Except that it isn't being prejudice against gays, ironically it is you and all those that think like you that are prejudiced against gays. You want the church to reject the uniqueness of gays and gay marriage, you would deny gays their unique, and what you believe to be innate, identity - you want the church to treat gays as something they are not. You are the one who is prejudice. The church is quite happy to acknowledge the uniqueness of gays.

As demonstrated your position is false, it is in fact you and all who think like you that are prejudice and dishonest.

Except of course that I am doing no such thing. I think heterosexuals should be treated equally. I think gays should be treated equally. Both these groups of people are different and I acknowledge and give recognition to those differences. You on the other hand do not, you do not want gays to be acknowledged as gays, you want gays to be acknowledged for what and who they are not. No "gay pride" from you, no "gay is the way" from you, no "gay by birth proud by choice" from you. Gay shame, gay is not the way, gay by birth ashamed by choice is what we get from you.

 And who exactly said any different? More effort please.

And who exactly said any different? More effort please. What I actually said was that you, "...believe that Jesus Christ could be in favour of gay marriage..." This is your position isn't it, or have you changed your mind since we last discussed this specific issue and you stretched reason and logic beyond all reasonable lengths to justify it?

This is only your opinion, an opinion that I assume is biased toward your life choices. Unfortunately for you and all who think like you, eternal life is not just a guess and the invitation has been extended to you and every single other gay person on the planet. That you reject it is to your detriment and I am saddened by it.  I am saddened by your short term view and by the selfish attitude you have toward gay marrieds and their children.

How can someone who demonstrates such an incredibly short term view on one hand demonstrate an incredibly long term view on the other. Does your view that its "all just a guess" not apply to infinite time? I understand what you are trying to say, and believe it or not I have a huge amount of sympathy (and I don't mean that in a patronising or condescending manner) for the position, however, you cannot possibly know this.    

You deserve to be applauded for this strong opinion. Now that gays have the guaranteed civil right to be married you should be celebrating your unique situation and not besmirch and organisation that acknowledges this unique situation by treating it in a unique manner. You are gay, not heterosexual, be who and what you are and don't ask for gays to be treated in a prejudice manner, don't ask for gays to be treated for who and what they are not.

I agree with you except for the context. The church wants every single gay person in the entire world to join its ranks, participate fully in its program and ultimately to enjoy eternal life. There are requirements and sacrifices to be made by every single person who accepts the invitation, gay people are not unique in that respect, but the invitation is there. It might have been extended to gays clumsily, rudely, insensitively, bombastically, ignorantly, arrogantly, in a threatening manner and in a manner that personally grates my goat but its there and the opportunity is there. You might have to be like Andy Dufresne and crawl through a river of muck to come out the other side and be gifted what is offered to every single person on this planet but don't you think it would be worth it?

This is exhausting.  I have made my opinion quite clear.  You seem to read the lines that say I HAVE NO IDEA and then the next thing you are stating is that I believe Christ approves of gay marriage.  Really??

Prop 8 is over.  Gays have the legal right to marry.  The churches role in taking away those civil rights in California have long been discussed. I personally think it is morally wrong for the church to work towards taking citizens civil rights away from them.  The courts have restored those rights.  It's over.  Move on.

The church is now going after gay couples who are members of the church.  This is not a legal issue.  This is not a civil rights issue.  This is a religious issue.  The  church is free to do what ever it darn well wants to do to it's members.  What else could you possible need me to say. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

I would really like to see documentation that the Church is actually encouraging gay families with children to divorce as opposed to it being mentioned in the discussion about the disciplinary court.  It is possible it might be listed as one of the options, just as it is an option for every marriage where choices have been made that may delay repentance and spiritual progress, but acknowledging something exists is not always encouraging it and may in fact discourage it.

The report I have had from missionaries in countries where polygyny is legal is they encourage the family to stay intact.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Calm

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would really like to see documentation that the Church is actually encouraging gay families with children to divorce as opposed to it being mentioned in the discussion about the disciplinary court.  It is possible it might be listed as one of the options, just as it is an option for every marriage where choices have been made that may delay repentance and spiritual progress, but acknowledging something exists is not always encouraging it and may in fact discourage it.

The report I have had from missionaries in countries where polygyny is legal is they encourage the family to stay intact.

Well first of all, we are talking about gay couples where at least one is already a member.  These are not convert baptisms.  Perhaps you can tell ME what the church wants in going after these couples?  Especially ones that have been inactive for over a decade.  

Do they want them to repent and come back into the church???  I think we would agree that would require a divorce and breaking up the family.  

Or do they just want them off the rolls of the church?   

Or am I missing an option that I haven't considered?

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

  Perhaps you can tell ME what the church wants in going after these couples?  Especially ones that have been inactive for over a decade.  

Do they want them to repent and come back into the church???  I think we would agree that would require a divorce and breaking up the family.  

Or do they just want them off the rolls of the church?   

Or am I missing an option that I haven't considered?

 

i think given that gay marriage has been defined as apostasy, for those leaders who are actively seeking out nonactive members to discuss the possibility of a court (remember if this is taking place in Utah and similar places, actively seeking out may amount to walking a few doors down to one's neighbour), the probabilty is the majority see officially terminating the member's relationship to the Church will be a benefit for the individual because they will no longer be in active and ongoing violation of covenants, a violation that is now defined as not only violating  the covenant of chasity committed to, but also other laws associated with apostasy.

I assume their vision of the best of an unfortunate situation is that the gay couple remains together legally until the children are grown, at which time repentance can be moved forward through action in addition to internal desires to change/repent whatever that means to the individual at that pooint, but what this might be would depend on the nature of the relationship between the couple...and there are too many variables to hypothetically discuss.

However, this is based on my own view of covenanta and excommunication so I may be significantly wrong.  Perhaps those whohave or are bishops here might share their POV.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dragons lay asleep.

Your position is lesbians are fire-breathing, carnivorous beasts with a hankering for virgins and an unhealthy lust for others' treasure? 

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Your position is lesbians are fire-breathing, carnivorous beasts with a hankering for virgins and an unhealthy lust for others' treasure? 

I'm not familiar with the sexual practices of dragons. But if dragons are as described I think it would be better to let them sleep.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

These are not convert baptisms.  

 

Which is why I asked you what do you think happens to a member, nonactive if you wish, who in a country were polygyny is legal marries into a polygamous relationship and their local leadership finds out?  Are they told to divorce their spouse, are excomunicated or something else?

Reports from those who have been in the country is they encourage the family to stay intact, and the church member is excommunicated.  Or so I have been told.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

i think given that gay marriage has been defined as apostasy, for those leaders who are actively seeking out nonactive members to discuss the possibility of a court (remember if this is taking place in Utah and similar places, actively seeking out may amount to walking a few doors down to one's neighbour), the probabilty is the majority see officially terminating the member's relationship to the Church will be a benefit for the individual because they will no longer be in active and ongoing violation of covenants, a violation that is now defined as not only violating  the covenant of chasity committed to, but also other laws associated with apostasy.

I assume their vision of the best of an unfortunate situation is that the gay couple remains together legally until the children are grown, at which time repentance can be moved forward through action in addition to internal desires to change/repent whatever that means to the individual at that pooint, but what this might be would depend on the nature of the relationship between the couple...and there are too many variables to hypothetically discuss.

However, this is based on my own view of covenanta and excommunication so I may be significantly wrong.  Perhaps those whohave or are bishops here might share their POV.

I think that is probably the most reasonable rational for going after these gay couples.  It still doesn't explain why those same bishops are not going after all the other inactive members to release them from the covenants they made as well.  While their moral sins may not be labled apostate for some reason, it seems they should still be expected to work towards repentance or be released from their covenants.  

I have to admit, I don't always see logic in what the church decides to do and what it decides to ignore.  I am sure they have their reasons.  

 

[Calm]

I see apostasy (in essence it is acting against the Church...I can understand why many might not see gay marriage in that way, but let us assume for the explanation it makes sense to everyone) as a significantly different form of covenant breaking such that it merits action...it is more damaging to the soul to participate in such activities as a member, where sins of morality (violating the Law of Chastity) are damaging to the soul in many ways as much as a nonmember as a member.  Thus I think the cost/benefit to the individual to remain a member when their actions meet apostate standards is too high and it is a gift to release them.

[Calm]

PS:  i have heard reports of a number of bishops convening courts on nonactive members for moral and other reasons.  I have also heard reports here of bishops not seeking out or intending to gay couples, whether nonactive or active, to convene a court for apostasy and no report of instructions yet on how to implement the mandatory aspect in the CHI.  I don't think we have enough information to assume that there is a significant difference between how gay marriages are being treated and heterosexual moral issues are at this point.

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is exhausting.  I have made my opinion quite clear.  You seem to read the lines that say I HAVE NO IDEA and then the next thing you are stating is that I believe Christ approves of gay marriage.  Really??

CFR that this is what I said. You really really really need to put in more effort and stop treating the very important subject of gays and gay marriage in such a flippant and obtuse manner.

I have clearly stated my position on two occasions now. However, being the helpful guy that I am, I will help you come to realise that you cant answer the CFR so you don't have to bother searching through my posts. What I said was (using a bit of my own emphasis just to be even more helpful) was "you believe that Jesus Christ COULD be in favour of gay marriage". Do you understand why my actual statement is different than what you are claiming? You have advocated strongly for this position during previous discussion on the subject with me on this forum. Is that correct? Yes or no?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Prop 8 is over.  Gays have the legal right to marry.  The churches role in taking away those civil rights in California have long been discussed. I personally think it is morally wrong for the church to work towards taking citizens civil rights away from them.  The courts have restored those rights.  It's over.  Move on.

We were not discussing this topic in this context, please, a little more effort. The context of our discussion was war, then offensive and defensive positions of each side in the war. If you don't want to discuss this topic in context and if you don't want to address each point raised then its probably best for you to just concede the point. This approach will take much less energy and help with your exhaustion.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The church is now going after gay couples who are members of the church.  This is not a legal issue.  This is not a civil rights issue.  This is a religious issue.  The  church is free to do what ever it darn well wants to do to it's members.  What else could you possible need me to say. 

Well I don't 'need' you to  say anything, I don't even 'need' you to say that you will stop acting in such a prejudice and selfish manner against gay marrieds and their children. Might have been nice if you actually dealt with the issues I raised in a meaningful manner but I don't 'need' you to do that either. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Kemara

[Calm]

PPS as I can't edit:  asfar as I remember there has been given no evidence that bishops who have contacted nonactive members in a gay marriage have refrained from also contacting nonactives in what are defined by the Church as relationships violating the Law of Chastity.  This idea of inequality of treatment appears to be pure conjecture and may or may not be true.  I don't think church leaders' actions need to be justified until they are demonstrated to actually exist.

I am letting my opinion of how gay marriage is different (as in having additional effects due to it also being apostasy, not because it is not heterosexual) from other LoC violations and thus may have a different effect on the Spirit for a member of the Church because it has probably already been read and I think it makes sense in explaining part of my current view of the interaction of gay marriage and membership covenants without needing to have the context of what or what not bishops are actually doing.

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That is exactly what is happening.  The argument that "can you provide some Biblical justification for defining homosexual marriage as apostasy" continues to rear its head because we have changed OUR definition of marriage as a Church.  Accepting civil marriages as equally valid with priesthood marriages has led to this argument being used.  Because in truth, there is ZERO difference between a civil heterosexual marriage and a civil homosexual marriage.  The authority binding both marriages is the same and there is nothing in the civil laws that prevent either from occurring.

Until we recognize that true marriage is a gospel ordinance, not a civil union, even members of the Church will continue to be able to make that argument, that SSM is bound by the same authority as heterosexual marriage.  And some will continue to pressure the Church to accept both since there really isn't a difference.
Until we recognize that there is actually no such thing as SSM it will continue to creep among members.
 

Not really.  Apostasy is moving away from truth, regardless of whether it is alone or with others.

 

I would also point out that it's ridiculous to expect to find any reference to same sex marriage being apostasy in the old testament when until a few years ago same sex marriage didn't exist. It's a bit difficult to find a Revelation on the subject that no one ever conceived of before a few years ago.

This is precisely why living prophets are necessary. Because when new issues come up we need direction from the Lord to move as a Church

[Stormin' Mormon]

A bishop who is not seeking out the inactive and inviting them to repent and to follow Christ is a bishop who is not doing his job. Finding lost sheep has been the focus of every ward council I have ever been in. It is a frequent topic of general conference talks. 

What happens, though, when repentance equals dissolution of a family? What happens if a bishop invites a SSM couple to repent? Best case scenario, the invitation is brushed off. Worst case scenario, the couple goes to the press and trumpets how the Mormons want to break up their family. 

My gut feeling is that by categorizing SSM as apostasy, which triggers a disciplinary council, it puts the gay couple in the driver's seat. I imagine (pure speculation on my part) that a disciplinary council will lay out the options for the SSM individual. He or she can continue on the church's radar, with the contact and calls to repentance from well meaning local leaders, or they can remove themselves from the rolls of the church and gain the space they need for their already difficult situation. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon
Spelling

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is why I asked you what do you think happens to a member, nonactive if you wish, who in a country were polygyny is legal marries into a polygamous relationship and their local leadership finds out?  Are they told to divorce their spouse, are excomunicated or something else?

Reports from those who have been in the country is they encourage the family to stay intact, and the church member is excommunicated.  Or so I have been told.

This is a pretty simple answer for me.  I would let them stay members of the church.  Certainly God can sort things out and punish them for any wrongs they may have committed here on earth.  Especially since there is a very strong chance that polygamy will be allowed in heaven.  I see no harm to the church especially since the person is not active and not promoting polygamy as a current Mormon belief.  The family unit is way more important than religious dogma.  I feel any church advocating for the break up of any families is going down a path that I don't believe God would want to see happen.  But hey, that is just my opinion.  I am sure others will disagree.