Would You Attend A Wedding For A SSM?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that Daniel is taking a cheap shot by "accusing the bishop/SP of lacking 'compassion or charity' and 'causing distress and despair'?"

Yep.

Quote

I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding you because that is a heartless thing to say to someone who lost his father and was denied the possibility of speaking words of love at his funeral.

Oh, baloney.  He's publicly castigating a bishop who was put in a no-win situation.  

First of all, it's a cheap shot to publicly sully this bishop in a public forum.  

Second, the bishop is obligated to adhere to the policies and guidelines in the Church Handbook.  I think it's unreasonable to make public declarations besmirching the bishop's character because of this.

Third, the family had the option of circumventing the Church's policy barring Daniel from speaking by not having the service in an LDS Chapel.  If it was indeed such a big issue, why not just retain the services of a funeral home and conduct the funeral there?  This would have been a win-win.

Quote

The bishop was not in a no-win situation. He could easily have made an exception to policy. I'm not sure which depresses me more, the fact that leaders would make such a compassionless, non-Christlike decision or that people would openly defend it. It's absolutely, positively, heartless and despicable.

Right.  I'll disregard your posts from here on out.  Not much of a chance of a good faith discussion here methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I daresay there are still many today who would be very uncomfortable at a same-sex wedding.

And, if in the shifting winds of society's folkways and norms, large-age-gap weddings were to one day become the norm, I daresay people would gradually grow more comfortable with them, just as many today have grown more comfortable with same-sex "marriage."

 

There are age-gap weddings and then there are illegal, abusive weddings of older men to minors (ala Warren Jeffs). These are two very different things. Illegal weddings where a minor is endangered is significantly different than a SSM between consenting adults. The comparison is ridiculous.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I daresay there are still many today who would be very uncomfortable at a same-sex wedding.

And, if in the shifting winds of society's folkways and norms, large-age-gap weddings were to one day become the norm, I daresay people would gradually grow more comfortable with them, just as many today have grown more comfortable with same-sex "marriage."

 

And I think being uncomfortable is a good reason not to go.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are age-gap weddings and then there are illegal, abusive weddings of older men to minors (ala Warren Jeffs). These are two very different things. Illegal weddings where a minor is endangered is significantly different than a SSM between consenting adults. The comparison is ridiculous.

I'm not equating them, but as I've said, I strongly disapprove of both.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And I think being uncomfortable is a good reason not to go.

Certainly.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yep.

Oh, baloney.  He's publicly castigating a bishop who was put in a no-win situation.  

First of all, it's a cheap shot to publicly sully this bishop in a public forum.  

Second, the bishop is obligated to adhere to the policies and guidelines in the Church Handbook.  I think it's unreasonable to make public declarations besmirching the bishop's character because of this.

Third, the family had the option of circumventing the Church's policy barring Daniel from speaking by not having the service in an LDS Chapel.  If it was indeed such a big issue, why not just retain the services of a funeral home and conduct the funeral there?  This would have been a win-win.

Right.  I'll disregard your posts from here on out.  Not much of a chance of a good faith discussion here methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did he name this thoughtless bishop? It's possible I missed it. If he didn't name the bishop then how did he "sully" him?

Bishops make exceptions to handbook policies all the time. Any current or past bishop will confirm this. The handbook is not meant to be a pharisaical guide that is followed to every jot and tittle. Obviously this bishop and you treat it as such but this is a weakness in your understanding because you think following a policy is more important than blessing those who are hurt. A policy like this is meant to give some guidance to the bishop to be cautious but he has discretion.

Your suggestion that the family circumvent the church's hurtful policy by having the funeral elsewhere is also thoughtless because you don't take into consideration the wishes of the deceased they were likely trying to honor not to mention it could be alienating to many church members who would like to attend. You are proposing that it would be better for the family to avoid the church because the church is unwilling to mourn with those who mourn. It sure doesn't say much for the church if you are right.

[Ahab]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Inflicting pain is a reason not to attend. That is messed up. I can see someone choosing not to attend even though it may cause pain due to other reasons but not attending because it causes pain? Wouldn't that make you a terrible person?

My intent would be to cause the type of pain I feel when I know that what I am doing is not pleasing to our Father in heaven.  The "he doesn't approve of what I am doing" type of pain.  The type of pain many people EITHER shrug off or try to shrug off thinking something like "oh well, so he doesn't like it" while they go ahead and do what they want to do anyway even while knowing that he doesn't like it OR they hope that maybe he will at least have no hard feelings against them even though they know that, for now, he really does NOT approve of what they are doing.

Of course I'm still not as perfect as he is at conveying my feelings to others,  but I still believe I should keep trying to become perfectly like him, in every way, and that would be my true intent.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

My family and I (including two of my brothers who are a Stake President and a bishop) just went through two months of attempting to persuade my mother's local

In response to my brothers' and my mothers' requests for consideration of our familial circumstances, Mom's local stake president and bishop asked me to provide character references, including the names of the bishop of my local Salt Lake City ward's bishop and my local ward's choir directors, not to mention all of my brothers' assurances that I would use my 7 minutes to pay tribute to my father, including even providing them with a written transcript of what I would promise to say. 

Ultimately, after numerous calls between my out-of-state brothers, and many tears of anguish by my Mom, the Stake Presidency never relented.  I ended up having to share my thoughts at my father's graveside, after the majority of friends and extended family left at the conclusion of the service.  I saw no compassion or charity in causing distress and despair during a time of grieving on behalf of myself, but especially my good-hearted Mom who has never waivered in her commitment to the church.

The fact that the SP & bishop asked for character references on Daniel2 means local leadership felt they had to option to let Daniel2 speak.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did he name this thoughtless bishop? It's possible I missed it. If he didn't name the bishop then how did he "sully" him?

Bishops make exceptions to handbook policies all the time. Any current or past bishop will confirm this. The handbook is not meant to be a pharisaical guide that is followed to every jot and tittle. Obviously this bishop and you treat it as such but this is a weakness in your understanding because you think following a policy is more important than blessing those who are hurt. A policy like this is meant to give some guidance to the bishop to be cautious but he has discretion.

Your suggestion that the family circumvent the church's hurtful policy by having the funeral elsewhere is also thoughtless because you don't take into consideration the wishes of the deceased they were likely trying to honor not to mention it could be alienating to many church members who would like to attend. You are proposing that it would be better for the family to avoid the church because the church is unwilling to mourn with those who mourn. It sure doesn't say much for the church if you are right.

I've attended a fair number of funerals in my time, and I have to say I've never felt alienated because the services were held at a funeral home as opposed to a Mormon chapel. Furthermore, I know a good many Mormons, and the very notion that any of them would feel alienated because they had to come to a funeral home for a funeral is absurd to the point of being laughable.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My intent would be to cause the type of pain I feel when I know that what I am doing is not pleasing to our Father in heaven.  The "he doesn't approve of what I am doing" type of pain.  The type of pain many people EITHER shrug off or try to shrug off thinking something like "oh well, so he doesn't like it" while they go ahead and do what they want to do anyway even while knowing that he doesn't like it OR they hope that maybe he will at least have no hard feelings against them even though they know that, for now, he really does NOT approve of what they are doing.

Of course I'm still not as perfect as he is at conveying my feelings to others,  but I still believe I should keep trying to become perfectly like him, in every way, and that would be my true intent.

Actually in many ways we are commanded not to be like God.....yet anyways. God kills and punishes the wicked and only in rare cases does he ask for our help in doing so. Inflicting pain on sinners the way God does is NOT part of our gospel mandate. He does it just fine without us so acting in a particular way to try to create pain "for their own good" is arrogance.

There are some exceptions in the parent/child relationship when the child is young but if a child young enough for that to apply is engaging in a marriage worthy of shame I think that is the fault of the parents.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did he name this thoughtless bishop? It's possible I missed it. If he didn't name the bishop then how did he "sully" him?

Bishops make exceptions to handbook policies all the time. Any current or past bishop will confirm this. The handbook is not meant to be a pharisaical guide that is followed to every jot and tittle. Obviously this bishop and you treat it as such but this is a weakness in your understanding because you think following a policy is more important than blessing those who are hurt. A policy like this is meant to give some guidance to the bishop to be cautious but he has discretion.

Your suggestion that the family circumvent the church's hurtful policy by having the funeral elsewhere is also thoughtless because you don't take into consideration the wishes of the deceased they were likely trying to honor not to mention it could be alienating to many church members who would like to attend. You are proposing that it would be better for the family to avoid the church because the church is unwilling to mourn with those who mourn. It sure doesn't say much for the church if you are right.

I'm saying there was a way for the Church's position to not conflict with Daniel's.  I am not hostile to either Daniel or his bishop in this matter.  I can see both points of view.  And I can assess this without resorting to hyperbole and insults.  

I understand the Church's policy against letting apostates and people who have resigned their membership speak in church meetings.  I think there are meritorious reasons for this policy.  I also am not persuaded that the bishop had discretion on this issue.  Bishops have a lot of discretion on many matters of church governance, yes.  Many, but not all.  As I understand it, the guidelines in the Handbook (Book 1, section 6.9) includes language making limitations on activity in church meetings by excommunicated (or resigned) persons.  Specifically, section 6.9.3 provides that such a person "may attend public Church meetings if his conduct is orderly, but his participation in such meetings is limited the same as for disfellowshipped members."  Section 6.9.2, which governs the activity of disfellowshipped persons, says that such a person "is encouraged to attend public Church meetings if his conduct is orderly, but he may not give a talk, offer a public prayer, partake of the sacrament, or participate in the sustaining of Church officers."  I don't see how you can say that this is discretionary.  And even if there was discretion to be exercised, I am not persuaded that the villainous bishop being publicly maligned by you and Daniel misused it.  That's often the circumstance in which we Latter-day Saints find ourselves.  Our critics and enemies are at liberty to publicly defame our leaders, and our leaders are not at liberty to defend themselves or explain their actions.  That rather makes people like you and Daniel bullies, does it not?  Rhetorically beating up someone who can't defend himself?

In any event, I also understand Daniel's point of view.  I think he has merit to his position.  

I also understand the (theoretical) "wishes of the deceased."  But I don't know what those wishes were.

So let's say there was an apparent conflict between A) Daniel wanting to speak at his father's funeral (which I can fully appreciate and respect), B) the LDS Church being unwilling to allow resigned members to speak during its services (which, unlike you, I can also fully appreciate and respect), and C) the (apparently theoretical) desire of Daniel's father to have a funeral in an LDS chapel rather than in a funeral home (I don't recall seeing Daniel speak to this, so I assume you are fabricating it to support your position hostile to the Church).  One of these had to give.  You think it should have been B, I think it should have been C.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose (your melodramatic hyperbole notwithstanding).

This was a difficult situation, to be sure.  But your and Daniel's unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric is not exactly helpful in discussing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Actually in many ways we are commanded not to be like God.....yet anyways. God kills and punishes the wicked and only in rare cases does he ask for our help in doing so. Inflicting pain on sinners the way God does is NOT part of our gospel mandate. He does it just fine without us so acting in a particular way to try to create pain "for their own good" is arrogance.

There are some exceptions in the parent/child relationship when the child is young but if a child young enough for that to apply is engaging in a marriage worthy of shame I think that is the fault of the parents.

Your opinion has been noted and I disagree that the pain I feel and am conveying to others,  if they truly do feel it, stems from any arrogance in me.

You can still believe that if you want, though.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your opinion has been noted and I disagree that the pain I feel and am conveying to others,  if they truly do feel it, stems from any arrogance in me.

You can still believe that if you want, though.

Will do.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The fact that the SP & bishop asked for character references on Daniel2 means local leadership felt they had to option to let Daniel2 speak.

Well, maybe.  Maybe not.  In any event, even if they had the option, I'm not sure they erred in choosing to not let him speak.

I should have stayed out of this discussion.  For reasons unfathomable to me, people like California Boy (I think that's his online handle) and Daniel like to frame their grievances against the Church by airing all of their "family's dirty laundry," so to speak.  Frankly, I dislike such tactics.  I think they are inappropriate.  Unseemly.  I think they are embarrassing to the family and the Church (intentionally so as to the latter).  I think they show a desire to harm the LDS Church and its reputation that outstrips its desire to preserve the decorum and privacy relating to the inner workings of familial difficulties.  I think it also smacks of bullying, as many of these stories are publicly aired knowing that the persons being harshly characterized by the likes of Daniel and HJW cannot speak for themselves.  

And here I am, encouraging such repellent behavior by discussing it.  Well, I'll rectify that right now.  I'm out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 17, 2016 by smac97

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I get that the Book of Mormon was prepared to come forth in our day, that the Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, that it was abridged and redacted under inspiration from God for our benefit and all that.

Still, it does not make sense to totally ignore the context of the material that is presented therein.

In the case of Moroni 8, we have a very specific context provided to us. It is, as Moroni denotes, "an epistle of my father Mormon, written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry."

Furthermore, in Moroni's direct and verbatim quotation of the letter, there is this additional context provided by Mormon:
 

We see here that Mormon's words were written with a very specific purpose to address a very specific problem that had crept into the church of that day.

And while there is, to be sure, a doctrinal message and warning for us today (otherwise, it presumably would not have been included for our benefit), we should beware of over-claiming, in that we use the wording of this chapter as a club to batter other Christians who do not altogether share our faith tradition. Mormon's message is quite internal as pertaining to the church, and in our latter-day application of it, we should view it with that lens.

To that end, Jeff Lindsay's analysis of Moroni 8 (and smac97's application of it here) is eminently sensible.

In fact, as much as anything else, the broader application of Moroni 8 for us today argues against the notion that homosexual behavior must be embraced within the doctrinal and cultural structure of Mormonism, since it warns against creeping heresy within the Church of Jesus Christ.

I actually agree with you for the most part, and I don't feel that I or anyone else here is guilty of "over-claiming"or clubbing our Catholic friends.  I agree that Mormon was addressing a very specific problem that had crept into the church of that day and therefore required more harsh rhetoric.  To my knowledge, no gay marriages have crept in and been performed under the church umbrella and authority in our day.  I disagree that Chapter 8 of Moroni is intended for "internal" purposes only.  

The doctrinal significance is not for us only, but to be shared with the world.  That's why we give away Book of Mormons to non-members.  We don't do so with the following caveat, "you can skip over chapter 8 of Moroni, that is not applicable to you Catholics.  It is only an abomination if you are a Mormon and practice it...carry on"  

Does anybody disagree that infant baptism is an apostate practice and abomination in the eyes of the Lord?  The fact that it is a tradition of the fathers passed down from generation to generation does not diminish from the apostate and abominable nature of it in the eyes of the Lord.  Again, that is like saying that gay marriage will somehow be less apostate and abominable over time, if it becomes widely accepted as a religious Christian ordinance or traditional civic ceremony.

Both you and smack are right that, we should not judge or condemn Catholics for practicing according to the dictates of their own conscience, even if the ordinance is abominable in the sight of the Lord.  The same should be true for our gay friends and family in practicing their beliefs according to the dictates of their own conscience.  

Your last paragraph seems to suggest that I and others are somehow endangering the doctrinal practices of Mormonism by "embracing" or welcoming homosexual behavior "within the doctrinal and cultural structures of Mormonism" by attending a wedding.  For the millionth time, I neither embrace or welcome the behavior, I don't rejoice or celebrate the behavior, any more than I would celebrate an infant baptism.  There simply is no moral difference in attendance between the 2.  You are not protecting the integrity of Mormon ordinances by not attending the wedding.  You just aren't.  That will never change. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

Our critics and enemies are at liberty to publicly defame our leaders, and our leaders are not at liberty to defend themselves or explain their actions.  That rather makes people like you and Daniel bullies, does it not?  Rhetorically beating up someone who can't defend himself?

Please explain why a leader is not at liberty to defend his actions in a case like this. The general church leadership is also free to make any statement they like about a policy like this. Your claim that they are defenseless is absurd. They are in fact the ones wielding the power by preventing a son from speaking at his father's funeral. There is no recourse for this abuse of power within the structure of the church. Once a bishop & SP say "no" there is nowhere else to go. Leaders SHOULD be accountable for the things they do and say. What you are suggesting is that the people with ALL the power should be able to do whatever they like without criticism.

For those who want to stay in the church (even holding a funeral at the church) they must accept the abuse of power because there is no recourse. Otherwise their only option is to leave the church (and do the funeral elsewhere). Your ilk seem to prefer that people just leave.

Pharisees didn't fare so well during Christ's earthly ministry but keep beating that drum if it makes you happy.

Edited March 17, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Daniel, I'm so sorry to hear that. What an absurd and thoughtless prohibition. Apparently your expressions of love for your father are too scary. So sad.

I agree. 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Catholics believe what they are doing is good and benevolent.

As opposed to the gays who willfully and knowingly adorn themselves with the heavy, clinking chains of hell, in open rebellion against the dictates of their own conscience.  Performing the deliberately evil and malevolent act of marriage, for the sole purpose of tasting the bitter, thick clouds of darkness which slips into their soul through their gaping mouth, as they proclaim the words, "I do!" 

Edited March 17, 2016 by pogi

[ttribe]

On 3/17/2016 at 2:27 PM, Ahab said:

My intent would be to cause the type of pain I feel when I know that what I am doing is not pleasing to our Father in heaven.  The "he doesn't approve of what I am doing" type of pain.  The type of pain many people EITHER shrug off or try to shrug off thinking something like "oh well, so he doesn't like it" while they go ahead and do what they want to do anyway even while knowing that he doesn't like it OR they hope that maybe he will at least have no hard feelings against them even though they know that, for now, he really does NOT approve of what they are doing.

Of course I'm still not as perfect as he is at conveying my feelings to others,  but I still believe I should keep trying to become perfectly like him, in every way, and that would be my true intent.

That's sadistic.  And creepy.

Edited March 19, 2016 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I actually agree with you for the most part, and I don't feel that I or anyone else here is guilty of "over-claiming"or clubbing our Catholic friends.  I agree that Mormon was addressing a very specific problem that had crept into the church of that day and therefore required more harsh rhetoric.  

I should hope that's the case. But I'm afraid I've perceived on this thread an unseemly tendency to apply the stern condemnation in Moroni 8 to the Catholic faith, this by way of trying to score debating points against people like me who have expressed a choice not to attend a same-sex "wedding" for any reason.

Quote

To my knowledge, no gay marriages have crept in and been performed under the church umbrella and authority in our day. 

But there has been pressure to bring that about, though it has been thwarted by Church leaders' determination to stand fast to the doctrines, beliefs and values of the Church and the gospel.
 

Quote

 

I disagree that Chapter 8 of Moroni is intended for "internal" purposes only.  

 

I was endeavoring to place it in its contextual setting. I thought you were agreeing with this in the quote above. Maybe not.

Quote

The doctrinal significance is not for us only, but to be shared with the world.  That's why we give away Book of Mormons to non-members.  We don't do so with the following caveat, "you can skip over chapter 8 of Moroni, that is not applicable to you Catholics.  It is only an abomination if you are a Mormon and practice it...carry on"  

Of course not. But it is not part of our approach or style in the Church of Jesus Christ to condemn or revile the sincerely held religious beliefs and faith of others. How many times have we heard it expressed by Church presidents that, in effect, we say to the world, "Bring with you all the truth that you possess and let us see if we can add to it"?

Quote

Does anybody disagree that infant baptism is an apostate practice and abomination in the eyes of the Lord?  The fact that it is a tradition of the fathers passed down from generation to generation does not diminish from the apostate and abominable nature of it in the eyes of the Lord.

Neither is it a compelling reason to refrain from visiting the worship services of another faith from time to time when it is well understood that we are only visiting and not giving endorsement or assent to the rites and rituals that go on there.

Quote

Both you and smack are right that, we should not judge or condemn Catholics for practicing according to the dictates of their own conscience, even if the ordinance is abominable in the sight of the Lord.  The same should be true for our gay friends and family in practicing their beliefs according to the dictates of their own conscience.  

I have already explained the difference as i see it, and I stand by it.

To reiterate, no reasonable person would conclude that a Mormon visiting a Catholic or Protestant service should be taken to imply that the Mormon embraces or agrees with the rites and rituals that go on there. On the other hand, the very reason for attendance at a wedding is implied approval of the marriage that is taking place. I repeat, I cannot in good conscience do that. The gesture would, in effect, be a lie.

Quote

Your last paragraph seems to suggest that I and others are somehow endangering the doctrinal practices of Mormonism by "embracing" or welcoming homosexual behavior "within the doctrinal and cultural structures of Mormonism" by attending a wedding.  For the millionth time, I neither embrace or welcome the behavior, I don't rejoice or celebrate the behavior, any more than I would celebrate an infant baptism.  There simply is no moral difference in attendance between the 2.  You are not protecting the integrity of Mormon ordinances by not attending the wedding.  You just aren't.  That will never change. 

I've repeatedly explained my reasoning. I'm not trying to protect "the integrity of Mormon ordinances by not attending the wedding." What I am doing is remaining true to my conscience by refusing to give implied public endorsement or approval to something I do not, in fact, approve of.

As for the other part of your quote above, I repeat that throughout this thread, it seems for the most part, it is those who have indicated they would not attend a gay wedding who are coming under fire here just because we won't agree with the rest of you. We have been implicitly accused of inconsistency, if not hypocrisy. In one case, there was an accusation of shunning.

If you earnestly hold to your opinion, fine; don't think you have to validate it by talking me into changing my mind.

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's masochistic.  And creepy.

So you approve, then?

[ttribe]

Just now, Ahab said:

So you approve, then?

Clever but, no.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Clever but, no.

So if it's neither masochistic nor creepy then would you approve?

I think it's pretty cool, actually,  that other people would actually feel the same pain I and our Father feel when they know we do not approve of what they do.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So if it's neither masochistic nor creepy then would you approve?

I think it's pretty cool, actually,  that other people would actually feel the same pain I and our Father feel when they know we do not approve of what they do.

I think The Nehor's evaluation of your position on this was accurate - it's wrong-headed and arrogant.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think The Nehor's evaluation of your position on this was accurate - it's wrong-headed and arrogant.

Good to know where you stand and what you stand for.

I and our Father in heaven on the other hand do not want people to feel good when they know we do not approve of their choices.