Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

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?

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.

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. 

Despite you consistent condescending comments of not making a good effort to answer your questions.  I will attempt one last time.

From previous posts.

I stated that the church made the first volley against gay couples by trying to take away the legal civli right to marry.  This is what you said

Quote

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

You made that statement knowing FULL WELL that the supreme court of California did in fact give gay couples the legal right to marry prior to Prop 8 even being on the ballot.  It is an undisputed FACT that gay couples had the legal right to marry prior to Prop 8.   The church actively worked to take away that civil right.  You can't change history.  And your distortion of history does not make it true.

This is how you ducked that FACT

Quote

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.

What does status quo have to do with legal rights?  The courts changed the status quo when women were given the right to vote.  The courts changed the status quo when businesses could no longer discriminate against blacks.  The courts changed the status quo when interracial couples were allowed to marry.  Should I go on??  What the status quo was has NOTHING to do with the church taking away a legal right for gay couples to marry.  A right that virtually every single federal district court and the Supreme Court upheld in this country.  

This is also what you also said in a previous post

Quote

 

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.

 

I never said that I didn't like the church's position  I never said that I didn't agree that the church's  position is correct..  I never even implied that.  I have ALWAYS stated that I DON"T KNOW WHAT CHRIST THINKS of gay marriage.  So YES you did say that I didn't like the church's position You did say that I didn't agree that it is correct.  And you did say that I didn't believe it was right.  There is your answer to your CFR.  Now will you apologize for misrepresenting what I said?

so one final quote from your posts

Quote

 

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.

 

There is your answer above to the CFR that you asked for.  Now quit putting words in my mouth.  Perhaps you should start taking your own condescending advice and really really really put a little more effort into reading what I actually wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

[USU78]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

You know, of course, that I was twitting you because you dug yourself a hole with your initial thought: to let sleeping dogs lie, which would have opened up politically correct you to censure by the hair on fire libs

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You know, of course, that I was twitting you because you dug yourself a hole with your initial thought: to let sleeping dogs lie, which would have opened up politically correct you to censure by the hair on fire libs

Was that intended to be twitting me? Sorry that I missed it. The phrase was intended to convey the idea that sometimes even with the best intentions the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play. Hopefully everything you have ever done has worked out how you initially thought it would. My experiences have been different. I  didn't go into the politics of the situation only what most of us would feel if confronted in the manner that was alleged. If being PC means I can act like a jerk with other peoples feelings, no thank you. My life is hard enough without being a jerk. Politically I'm a Moderately Conservative Liberal.

[Kemara]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Despite you consistent condescending comments of not making a good effort to answer your questions.  I will attempt one last time.

From previous posts.

I stated that the church made the first volley against gay couples by trying to take away the legal civli right to marry.  This is what you said

You made that statement knowing FULL WELL that the supreme court of California did in fact give gay couples the legal right to marry prior to Prop 8 even being on the ballot.  It is an undisputed FACT that gay couples had the legal right to marry prior to Prop 8.   The church actively worked to take away that civil right.  You can't change history.  And your distortion of history does not make it true.

This is how you ducked that FACT

What does status quo have to do with legal rights?  The courts changed the status quo when women were given the right to vote.  The courts changed the status quo when businesses could no longer discriminate against blacks.  The courts changed the status quo when interracial couples were allowed to marry.  Should I go on??  What the status quo was has NOTHING to do with the church taking away a legal right for gay couples to marry.  A right that virtually every single federal district court and the Supreme Court upheld in this country.  

This is also what you also said in a previous post

I never said that I didn't like the church's position  I never said that I didn't agree that the church's  position is correct..  I never even implied that.  I have ALWAYS stated that I DON"T KNOW WHAT CHRIST THINKS of gay marriage.  So YES you did say that I didn't like the church's position You did say that I didn't agree that it is correct.  And you did say that I didn't believe it was right.  There is your answer to your CFR.  Now will you apologize for misrepresenting what I said?

so one final quote from your posts

There is your answer above to the CFR that you asked for.  Now quit putting words in my mouth.  Perhaps you should start taking your own condescending advice and really really really put a little more effort into reading what I actually wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh good grief! What a monstrosity of a reply, and this is you giving it a good effort? I refuse to believe that, lets just put it down to you being exhausted shall we?

Quote

What does status quo have to do with legal rights?

What on earth did legal right have to do with the context of our discussion? The context of our discussion was war (your characterisation not mine) and who started the war. Try and follow along, I'll go slowly:

1. You - "church is at war against with gays"
2. Me - War requires two parties, gays were the party on the offensive, church was the defending party
4. You - No, "The first volley was made by the church when it tried to take away the civil rights of gays..."
5. Me - "How was it that the church tried to take away something gays didn't have at the time?"

You said "The first volley", those are your words not mine. Now let me ask you a question, when did the church fire its "first volley"? Was it before or after 16 June 2008? It was before wasn't it, long before. Do you get it now Californiaboy? If you really think that the first time the church opposed gay marriage was in relation to Prop 8 then you haven't been paying attention. Did gays have the legal right to marry before 16 June 2008 - yes or no?

This is the reason why I responded to your position that:

Quote

...it was the church that went on the offense to attack the status quo. Gay marriage was LEGAL in California under the California constitution

with the following:

Quote

All except for the fact that SSM was not legal in California until 16 June 2008

Again, did gays have the legal right to marry before 16 June 2008? Was the first time the church opposed gay marriage before or after this date? Do you get it now? Are we clear now or are you going to continue trying to distort history?

So to specifically answer your question regarding status quo, please refer to your quote immediately above. Status quo was the context of this discussion, not legality, not civil rights, not 16 June 2008, not Prop 8 - status quo - and you KNOW it, because your post immediately above was in response to my use of the term - status quo. So please, cut the nonsense, your own posts prove that you knew the context of the discussion was:

1. Who fired the first shot in the war
2. My position was that it was gays who attacked the status quo that existed prior to 16 June 2008.  

So how come you initially responded in context but are now claiming our discussion was based on a completely unrelated context? This is not a rhetorical question.

Quote

So YES you did say that I didn't like the church's position You did say that I didn't agree that it is correct.  And you did say that I didn't believe it was right.  There is your answer to your CFR.  Now will you apologize for misrepresenting what I said?

Good grief, this just keeps getting worse and worse, but it really is par for the course when discussing gay issues with you...so here we go again.

CFR that I issued a CFR that had anything to do with :
1. That you said you didn't like the church's position
2. That you said you didn't agree that it was correct
3. That you said you didn't believe it was right.

If you cannot provide the CFR then you are required to follow board rules in response. I will wait patiently.

So who is it that needs to really really really put a little more effort into reading what was written? Go home if your not already, have a good meal, and get a good sleep and try not get so exhausted ever again, no one wants you to give a repeat performance.

 

 

[ERMD]

On 2/28/2016 at 6:40 AM, sjdawg said:

The law might disagree with you.  Just because the LDS Church doesn't like something doesn't mean they don't exist.

Newsflash--this is an LDS discussion board, not a legal discussion board.

[busybee]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Exactly!! And how many heterosexual couples who are breaking the Law of Chastity are going to go running to the media to tell them that the big, ole meanies of the Mormon Church are holding a disciplinary council for them. This is all about throwing tantrums and stamping feet because the Church has drawn a line in the sand and will not accede to their demands for the church to recognise gay marriage.

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, busybee said:

Exactly!! And how many heterosexual couples who are breaking the Law of Chastity are going to go running to the media to tell them that the big, ole meanies of the Mormon Church are holding a disciplinary council for them. 

Many of them might if they hadn't attended or bothered the church in years and were not actively preaching against the church, and then their local leaders sought them out for discipline.

If a couple comes in and requests a meeting with their Bishop to confess and a desire to repent, that's different and I highly doubt any of these heterosexual couples would speak out.  But, if the church leaders start actively contacting in-actives for disciplinary purposes, I imagine we (and others) will hear about it as they will speak up about it.  I agree it's not likely to get the same attention as if it was a SSM couple, but many would complain if this happened to them.

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

On 2/26/2016 at 5:37 PM, Calm said:

We do if there is actually adultery involved, ie they are not allowed to have a temple sealing until they have a minimum of 5 or 10 years of a civil marriage, can't remember which and they mat never get approval depending on the circumstances.

I have also known of cases where the bishop pulled recommends for divorce when no adultery was involved, but instead what the bishop interpreted as unfaithfulness...wanting to dump one's spouse for selfish reasons.

If that's happening it's a bishop going rogue. There is no policy in place that treats divorce/remarriage as adultery. Maybe it's because church leaders used to so casually divorce in the days of polygamy. 

[Gray]

On 2/27/2016 at 11:00 AM, Sleeper Cell said:

In every other case, “repentance” requires that one must stop committing the sin.  Why should gay people be exempt?  

BTW, the very fact that there is no way that such SSM couples can stop committing the sin without breaking up the family is a good reason for regarding SSM as a more serious sin than “shacking up” by non-gay people.   

I guess that's the inherent problem with trying to define some families as inherently sinful. What an awful way to treat these otherwise happy families. 

[Gray]

On 2/28/2016 at 11:04 PM, The Nehor said:

But of course you, being independent of your environment and generation, know better.

We're all products of our environment. But I didn't grow up in a time when gay people were featured in paranoid anti-gay propaganda. I did grow up with some homophobia in high school, but not pervasive enough that I couldn't look past that when I grew up and had openly gay colleagues in the work place.

People who grew up in the south in the 40s had a big problem with integration and interracial marriage. We all grow up with things that limit our ability to be compassionate towards people who are seen as different, but the blinders have been slowly falling off with each generation. That's how revelation works. From the ground up, line upon line. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Gray

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

We're all products of our environment. But I didn't grow up in a time when gay people were featured in paranoid anti-gay propaganda. I did grow up with some homophobia in high school, but not pervasive enough that I couldn't look past that when I grew up and had openly gay colleagues in the work place.

People who grew up in the south in the 40s had a big problem with integration and interracial marriage. We all grow up with things that limit our ability to be compassionate towards people who are seen as different, but the blinders have been slowly falling off with each generation. That's how revelation works. From the ground up, line upon line. 

I disrespectfully disagree.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disrespectfully disagree.

Oh, you. 

[Rain]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

 

First I want to clarify what is meant by "going after" to me. It can have 2 very different conotations. One could be harassment. The other would mean to help someone out of love. When I speak below I am talking about the latter.

One bishop 10 years told my husband that he did go after the inactive (and in different states of righteousness or unrighteousness) in the ward. He visited with them, explained things like covenants and discussed with them reasons why they would want to stay or not stay. Then he asked them to make a choice. If they chose not to stay he told them how a letter needed to be done. 

He was not threatening them, but helping them make a choice of where they stood.

I never heard that about this bishop anywhere else. Thete was a reason he tols my husband, but I dont remember what it was. I suspect that a number, but not all of course, bishops do something similar. 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Many of them might if they hadn't attended or bothered the church in years and were not actively preaching against the church, and then their local leaders sought them out for discipline.

If a couple comes in and requests a meeting with their Bishop to confess and a desire to repent, that's different and I highly doubt any of these heterosexual couples would speak out.  But, if the church leaders start actively contacting in-actives for disciplinary purposes, I imagine we (and others) will hear about it as they will speak up about it.  I agree it's not likely to get the same attention as if it was a SSM couple, but many would complain if this happened to them.

.

When I was a University of California undergraduate, one of my roommates bitterly complained that his family’s church had refused the rent-free use of their facilities for his sister’s wedding on the grounds that his family had been dropped from the membership rolls (simply because they hadn‘t attended in years). The rest of us all but laughed in his face. The reaction from his other friends and acquaintances wasn’t much better.  

Do you feel that his church acted unreasonably?  Do you believe his complaint would have garnered any attention, even today?  

Suppose the LDS church summarily dropped from its rolls all long term inactives  in cases where it is clear that they are also serious transgressors. No further calls for repentance.  No contact for a disciplinary hearing.  Simply a brief letter informing them that they are no longer members.  Would that be OK?
 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

When I was a University of California undergraduate, one of my roommates bitterly complained that his family’s church had refused the rent-free use of their facilities for his sister’s wedding on the grounds that his family had been dropped from the membership rolls (simply because they hadn‘t attended in years). The rest of us all but laughed in his face. The reaction from his other friends and acquaintances wasn’t much better.  

Do you feel that his church acted unreasonably?  Do you believe his complaint would have garnered any attention, even today?

 

Of course not.  But that's not a valid comparison here, not even close.  You're comparing someone not getting to use a church they haven't attended in years at no charge for a private family event, to what is being discussed on this thread (the seeking out of couples/members and disciplining them?).  You can't be serious.

17 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Suppose the LDS church summarily dropped from its rolls all long term inactives  in cases where it is clear that they are also serious transgressors. No further calls for repentance.  No contact for a disciplinary hearing.  Simply a brief letter informing them that they are no longer members.  Would that be OK?
 

I'm sure many would welcome this.  

. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[rongo]

I haven't been here for a few days, but I'm pretty sure that my questions from earlier still haven't been addressed. These were for people who are critical of the Church's policy actions/changes over the last several months. Here they are again:

1) (Granted that non-traditional families are families --- and for the record, my sister raised her son as a single parent, with extensive help from my parents. This family is every bit as much a family as my traditional mother-father-children family):

Do you agree that the definition of family in the Proclamation is ideal? In other words, while the Proclamation acknowledges that circumstances "may necessitate individual adaptation" (i.e., non-traditional families such as step, single-parent, or extended family child-raising), do you agree that it would be best for children to be raised by a mother and father who are married to each other?

2) Does God have a preference about our family make-ups? Nobody argues that our messy lives don't lead to messy family arrangements here on earth, and He grants us agency, but would God Himself prefer that families fit the Proclamation on the Family mold?

3) If you are critical of how the Church is publicly emphasizing and teaching its doctrine on family, how could it do it differently, or better? Without watering down or throwing in the towel on important things?

-----

It seems to me that there is a spectrum among Mormons critical of the Church's stance and policy. On one end are those who think that the Brethren are simply wrong, spectacularly wrong, and that God actually accepts and embraces gay marriage as a legitimate family arrangement, both on earth and in the hereafter. This view holds that the Church will eventually "get with it" as it did with polygamy or the priesthood ban. The other end isn't willing to go that far, but wishes that the Church would not actively enforce some commandments or would eliminate certain policies. In other words, "just let people be."

I think it's obvious where I'm going with these questions. In my view, if the PotF definition of the family is ideal and God's preference, then to acknowledge it but not actively try to get people to repent and embrace it (which includes church discipline and taking unpopular social stances) makes the Church ineffective and impotent. On the other hand, unpopular as it may be, the Church being bold here a) makes its position crystal clear, and b) is much more likely to make an impression and bring about individual change than if it simply said, "Well, we believe this and that, it doesn't really matter."

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

I haven't been here for a few days, but I'm pretty sure that my questions from earlier still haven't been addressed. These were for people who are critical of the Church's policy actions/changes over the last several months. Here they are again:

1) (Granted that non-traditional families are families --- and for the record, my sister raised her son as a single parent, with extensive help from my parents. This family is every bit as much a family as my traditional mother-father-children family):

Do you agree that the definition of family in the Proclamation is ideal? In other words, while the Proclamation acknowledges that circumstances "may necessitate individual adaptation" (i.e., non-traditional families such as step, single-parent, or extended family child-raising), do you agree that it would be best for children to be raised by a mother and father who are married to each other?

Hey rongo, I saw this post and decided to try and address your questions, albeit I might not be the best to do so.  I'll try.

I'm personally not convinced the definition of family in the Proc is ideal.  Much like some people are better outside the Church than in it, I think some people are better outside a traditional family than it is, or I think it's at least possible that there are those better off in a different scenario.  For instance, I think someone who is gay is better off with another person who is gay rather than with someone of the opposite sex.  Children are often raised by grandparents or other because it is a better situation for them.  Perhaps their ideal situation, all things considered.  There are probably tons of cases where children raised in a traditional family setting are worse off than some children raised by single parents, gay parents or extended family. 

 

Just now, rongo said:

2) Does God have a preference about our family make-ups? Nobody argues that our messy lives don't lead to messy family arrangements here on earth, and He grants us agency, but would God Himself prefer that families fit the Proclamation on the Family mold?

Not sure.  Seeing that many people seek God and yet have families outside the traditional set up, as we see it, might suggest God supports them either way.  Perhaps He actually knows what's best for the individual and different circumstances work best for different people. 

Just now, rongo said:

3) If you are critical of how the Church is publicly emphasizing and teaching its doctrine on family, how could it do it differently, or better? Without watering down or throwing in the towel on important things?

Not put out such a policy to begin. 

Just now, rongo said:

-----

It seems to me that there is a spectrum among Mormons critical of the Church's stance and policy. On one end are those who think that the Brethren are simply wrong, spectacularly wrong, and that God actually accepts and embraces gay marriage as a legitimate family arrangement, both on earth and in the hereafter. This view holds that the Church will eventually "get with it" as it did with polygamy or the priesthood ban. The other end isn't willing to go that far, but wishes that the Church would not actively enforce some commandments or would eliminate certain policies. In other words, "just let people be."

I think it's obvious where I'm going with these questions. In my view, if the PotF definition of the family is ideal and God's preference, then to acknowledge it but not actively try to get people to repent and embrace it (which includes church discipline and taking unpopular social stances) makes the Church ineffective and impotent. On the other hand, unpopular as it may be, the Church being bold here a) makes its position crystal clear, and b) is much more likely to make an impression and bring about individual change than if it simply said, "Well, we believe this and that, it doesn't really matter."

 

[busybee]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Many of them might if they hadn't attended or bothered the church in years and were not actively preaching against the church, and then their local leaders sought them out for discipline.

If a couple comes in and requests a meeting with their Bishop to confess and a desire to repent, that's different and I highly doubt any of these heterosexual couples would speak out.  But, if the church leaders start actively contacting in-actives for disciplinary purposes, I imagine we (and others) will hear about it as they will speak up about it.  I agree it's not likely to get the same attention as if it was a SSM couple, but many would complain if this happened to them.

.

I'm willing to bet that even an in-active heterosexual couple wouldn't be running to the media if the bishop sought them out to inform them of disciplinary actions being taken.

And as is the normal modus operandi for this we will only ever hear this side of the allegedly maligned gay-couple's story, because we all know that the Bishop is prevented, by the nature of his calling, from commenting or defending himself if he is being misrepresented. And you bet your donkey that the people telling their story know that what they are saying will never be refuted.

Life is easy when you know your side of the story is the only one that people will hear. It's almost like you can put things in any context you like......

Edited February 29, 2016 by busybee

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, busybee said:

I'm willing to bet that even an in-active heterosexual couple wouldn't be running to the media if the bishop sought them out to inform them of disciplinary actions being taken.

And as is the normal modus operandi for this we will only ever hear this side of the allegedly maligned gay-couple because we all know that the Bishop is prevented, by the nature of his calling, from commenting or defending himself if he is being misrepresented. And you bet your donkey that the people telling their story know that what they are saying will never be refuted.

Life is easy when you know your side of the story is the only one that people will hear. It's almost like you can put things in any context you like......

That's pretty silly.  No heterosexual couple that doesn't go to Church is being targeted by leaders anyway.  If they were it wouldn't be because they are a heterosexual couple. 

It's easy to place a bet on something that will never happen.   Imagine, "we're a married straight couple and the Church is coming after us because we are heterosexual."

Edited February 29, 2016 by stemelbow

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I guess that's the inherent problem with trying to define some families as inherently sinful. What an awful way to treat these otherwise happy families. 

Nope.  That’s the inherent problem with changing the definition of marriage, and then expecting a church to change its doctrines to conform to the new definition.  What an awful way to treat a church.  

Hasn’t homosexual activity been considered inherently sinful by the church since its beginning?  As far as I know, it has traditionally been considered inherently sinful by Christianity and Judaism since their beginnings.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

I'm willing to bet that even an in-active heterosexual couple wouldn't be running to the media if the bishop sought them out to inform them of disciplinary actions being taken.

I have to believe if local leaders started actively seeking out "sinners" to call them to repentance and attempting to discipline them, it would be publicized by some.  It would not look good for the church if they began doing this (as it's not good PR regarding what they are doing here even though many believe it's the right thing to do).  People speak out when they feel they're being singled out unfairly, so again, some would.

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

And as is the normal modus operandi for this we will only ever hear this side of the allegedly maligned gay-couple because we all know that the Bishop is prevented, by the nature of his calling, from commenting or defending himself if he is being misrepresented. And you bet your donkey that the people telling their story know that what they are saying will never be refuted.

And, it's their right to tell their side of the story.  Overall, people are bright enough to recognize they are only hearing one side.  But just because the church remains silent about it, that does not mean members can't relate what they believe happened or what they experienced.

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Just now, Sleeper Cell said:

Nope.  That’s the inherent problem with changing the definition of marriage, and then expecting a church to change its doctrines to conform to the new definition.  What an awful way to treat a church.  

Hasn’t homosexual activity been considered inherently sinful by the church since its beginning?  As far as I know, it has traditionally been considered inherently sinful by Christianity and Judaism since their beginnings.

Reminds me of polygamy in the early days, though.  The Church was, by and large, a supporter of monogamous marriages.  Then suddenly the people were expected to change their doctrines and conform to a new definition, including polygamy.  It was tough, for sure, and perhaps one of the more difficult activities of our past to come to terms with, whatever that would mean.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Nope.  That’s the inherent problem with changing the definition of marriage, and then expecting a church to change its doctrines to conform to the new definition.  What an awful way to treat a church.  

Hasn’t homosexual activity been considered inherently sinful by the church since its beginning?  As far as I know, it has traditionally been considered inherently sinful by Christianity and Judaism since their beginnings.

Scripture doesn't specifically address the issue of monogamous, committed gay marriage. "The church" isn't a person, it's an institution. No one can hurt its feelings. But arguably the current policy will be very damaging to the long-term health of the church.

If we're just going to go by Christian tradition, there is a lot about Mormonism we'd need to jettison. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Gray

[busybee]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's pretty silly.  No heterosexual couple that doesn't go to Church is being targeted by leaders anyway.  If they were it wouldn't be because they are a heterosexual couple. 

It's easy to place a bet on something that will never happen.   Imagine, "we're a married straight couple and the Church is coming after us because we are heterosexual."

And you would know this how?? How do you know the NO heterosexual couples (who are breaking the Law of Chastity, because that is what we're talking about here) that don't go to church are being 'targeted' by leaders.

The Church doesn't recognize gay-marriage and so those who have entered into such a 'marriage' are breaking the Law of Chastity as defined by the standards of the Lord's church. The people in question are not facing disciplinary measures because they are gay, but because they have entered into a 'gay marriage'.

Don't be obtuse.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, busybee said:

And you would know this how?? How do you know the NO heterosexual couples (who are breaking the Law of Chastity, because that is what we're talking about here) that don't go to church are being 'targeted' by leaders.

The Church doesn't recognize gay-marriage and so those who have entered into such a 'marriage' are breaking the Law of Chastity as defined by the standards of the Lord's church. The people in question are not facing disciplinary measures because they are gay, but because they have entered into a 'gay marriage'.

Don't be obtuse.  

Married straight couple being targeted because they are not gay?  Are you saying if a married straight couple is cheating on each other with others?  Well, I guess it's possible that local leaders would try and discipline any such inactive members, but it seems unlikely that'd happen.  I'd think most local leaders would try and talk to them first.