USU78 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Jeanne, from my perspective, it's unfortunate that when it comes to attending temple wedding ceremonies or speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels, the LDS Church prevents those of us who have left the church to fully participate. That strikes me as a sad irony, given the church's intended goal of uniting families... though I fully understand that most active Latter-day Saints view it differently, and why they do. Where's the irony? I don't think that word means what you think it means
Duncan Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 You don't have to agree with it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attend, I disagreed with a lot of stuff I heard in school but I never stopped going and besides Nanaimo Bars people!!!!!!!! Nanaimo Bars
Atheist Mormon Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 8 hours ago, Boanerges said: I would absolutely attend. and why not?
Daniel2 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: With respect, I think that is naive. If I march in a NARAL-funded pro-abortion parade, I can't say that "the significance of my marching in a pro-abortion parade is what I make of it, it is not for others to decide for me." The impression I give to others by marching in a pro-abortion parade is . . . that I support NARAL and am pro-abortion. The impression I give to others will be based on my conduct, and it is for them to decide, not for me to decide for them. In my view, there's a huge difference between attending public events clearly designed with the intention of advocating for a specific agenda to a larger, external audience (i.e. marching in a pro-abortion parade or a gay pride parade) vs. a private gathering of family and friends to celebrate two individuals' mutual commitment to one another, with no intention of advocating towards a larger, external audience. I don't think the comparison is apt. Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, USU78 said: Where's the irony? I don't think that word means what you think it means Quote i·ro·ny ˈīrənē/ noun noun: irony a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. plural noun: ironies "the irony is that I thought he could help me" synonyms: paradox, incongruity, incongruousness "the irony of the situation" To me, the state of affairs and events (the church's prohibition of non-LDS family members from attending weddings within LDS temples, or of former-members from speaking at family members' funerals within LDS chapels... or that results in causing members to avoid attending non-LDS-sanctioned weddings between a family member and his/her same-sex spouse) seems deliberately contrary to what I would expect ("the church's intended goal of uniting families") from an organization that claims to proclaim the importance of families and encourage family unity. In my view, that fits the definition of irony. Only, as I said previously, I find it "sad irony," rather than the humorous sort. Though, as I also said previously, I fully understand that most active Latter-day Saints view it differently, and why they do. Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2 1
JulieM Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I gave him a rep point because I agree with what he seems to me to be saying: In theory, at least, you would have moral qualms against attending weddings under some circumstances. It's just a matter of what happens to trip your morality alarm. For my part, I disapprove of homosexual behavior. Is there really any surprise there? But you're ok with a 45 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. Got it.
Jeanne Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 39 minutes ago, Duncan said: You don't have to agree with it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attend, I disagreed with a lot of stuff I heard in school but I never stopped going and besides Nanaimo Bars people!!!!!!!! Nanaimo Bars Please tell...what are Nanaimo Bars?? Must be good!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, JulieM said: But you're ok with a 45 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. Got it. Um, where did I state that? In fact, where did I join in this conversation at all prior to one page ago when you challenged me because I gave somebody a rep point? Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
strappinglad Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Please tell...what are Nanaimo Bars?? Must be good! Here !!! https://www.bing.com/search?q=nanaimo+bars&form=EDGEAR&qs=OS&cvid=aad5e6f9ea62484791953e3b672622cc&pq=naniamo They don't put on any weight...as long as you eat them after midnight. 1
Duncan Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Please tell...what are Nanaimo Bars?? Must be good! Hand held diabetes but SO GOOD!!!!! They always serve them at weddings!!! http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/nanaimo-bars-89644 1
JulieM Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Um, where did I state that? In fact, where did I join in this conversation at all prior one page ago when you challenged me because I gave somebody a rep point? Well, that is what I was objecting to. You appeared to oppose by giving a rep point to T-Shirt. i do have objections to a 45 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. You seem to have qualms with me having that "moral qualm". Edited March 17, 2016 by JulieM
mtomm Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 38 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Here !!! https://www.bing.com/search?q=nanaimo+bars&form=EDGEAR&qs=OS&cvid=aad5e6f9ea62484791953e3b672622cc&pq=naniamo They don't put on any weight...as long as you eat them after midnight. I saw coconut, I'm in and I'll officiate so it's over very quickly. No reason to drag out the ceremony... How do you pronounce the name?
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted March 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: This strikes me as quite a different proposition. If I as a non-Catholic am attending a Catholic baptism, presumably my non-Catholic status is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and esteem for the family of the infant and an expression of sharing in their joy over the birth, not as an expression of assent to theological beliefs or ritual. A gay "wedding" is different in that it is reasonably inferred that all in attendance approve of the couple's illicit sexual relationship and are, in fact, celebrating it. As I've already stated, this I cannot do. Yeah I'm not seeing it. SSM is labeled as an act of apostasy if you are a member of the church (ie. directly opposed to LDS principles/doctrine)....not in the same boat as, say, someone who has an affair or has sex out of wedlock. Though all of those may be considered up for disciplinary councils, the latter 2 would be for different reasons than the first. Infant baptism is "solemn mockery" before the Lord. Like SSM, it goes against specific doctrines about what baptism/marriage are and are for. Like SSM, if you were for some reason to try and actively baptize an infant you could face disciplinary council for apostasy. Like SSM it is considered a "gross error that should be removed from among you." We're taught to teach others this true doctrine of repentance of parents to be like their little children (ie. Clean). And it is considered a denial of Christ's atonement and power to uphold such. It then mentions that those who teach/practice infant baptism are in the "gall of bitterness" and the "bonds of iniquity," lacking "faith, hope, and charity." It then says a person "cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose" salvation of an infant was based on whether it was baptized. And it just keeps going in very strict and clear terms that this is "awful wickedness" because it "pervert the ways of the Lord." Attending a baptism of an infant is equally participating in a baptism as much as is attending a gay wedding. Both acts are explicitly forbidden by the LDS church....one done in holy scripture in really clear uncompromising terms. Attending a baby shower is celebrating the baby and their new chapter, attending the luncheon after the baptism is sharing in their joy over the birth. The middle is noting that you may not be actively Catholic, but there aren't enough active qualms to object to their baby baptism. Even though, from scripture, there probably should be as it is a form of denial of Jesus Christ's atonement. I have personally never gone to a wedding with the inference that i'm celebrating or approving whatever they do sexually....most couples I don't know enough about to know what they do or don't do period in private, when I attend a wedding...and knowing what I know in my practice, I'm pretty sure there could be a few straight couples that I would also have my discrepancies with. It's about showing up, showing some love and support for friends/family and celebrating a new chapter in their life. If I was expected to wear a rainbow flag and pledge a commitment to uphold and promote SSM, all forms of sexual relationships as equally good, etc, you'd have a point. I wouldn't attend because I couldn't lie and it would dishonor my religious covenants. Likewise if I was expected to show some form of obeisance to the practice of infant baptism in their service I wouldn't go/show such because it dishonors my faith. But passively attending either isn't the same as active support for a practice. Plus the people who invited you are just as likely to know you're a mormon who doesn't believe in marriage that isn't between a man and a woman as you would the close friend who invited you to an infant baptism. I would probably wager that the ones inviting you to an infant baptism, in fact, would probably be more likely to assume you are ok with infant baptism because a) our beliefs around infant baptism are less known then our collective beliefs about SSM and b) They may assume that, if they saw you as a christian, you would find this act right and holy (or at least ok) even though you're not Catholic. So if one was to go with expected inferences I would be more concerned with the baptism than the marriage. With luv, BD Edited March 17, 2016 by BlueDreams 7
6EQUJ5 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I think the example of Jesus makes the answer to this question pretty darn clear.
carbon dioxide Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 12 hours ago, ALarson said: So, would you attend? I could not attend. My view of things is if was to attend, give gifts, ect would be an endorsement of the wedding. I would not condemn others for choosing to go but I would have to be honest with myself and my beliefs. 2
carbon dioxide Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Daniel2 said: To me, the state of affairs and events (the church's prohibition of non-LDS family members from attending weddings within LDS temples, or of former-members from speaking at family members' funerals within LDS chapels... or that results in causing members to avoid attending non-LDS-sanctioned weddings between a family member and his/her same-sex spouse) seems deliberately contrary to what I would expect ("the church's intended goal of uniting families") from an organization that claims to proclaim the importance of families and encourage family unity. In my view, that fits the definition of irony. Only, as I said previously, I find it "sad irony," rather than the humorous sort. Though, as I also said previously, I fully understand that most active Latter-day Saints view it differently, and why they do. Though family is extremely important, it is not family at all cost. Our first obligation should be to God. Nobody will be able to stand before God at judgement and say "Sorry Lord, I decided to choose family over you" and not expect condemnation to follow. And if the church was to allow non-members into the temple, might as well just scrap the whole temple recommend thing. 2
carbon dioxide Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 7 hours ago, consiglieri said: The LDS Church has made its control complete over members who choose the church over family. It is made only more ironic in a church that ostensibly promotes the importance of the family. But when the rubber meets the road, the church is more important than anything . . . including your loved ones. It is a good lesson to remember. Does family give salvation or eternal life to us or God? Family is extremely important but once a person dies, their family can do nothing for them. If they choose family over God, they will reap the eternal consequences of that decision. It is only when the family is in line with the standards that God requires that family has any eternal meaning and consequence. 2
carbon dioxide Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 7 hours ago, pogi said: I really like BlueDreams parallel and think it deserves a little more attention. She said: For those who would choose not to attend a gay marriage of a friend or family member, would you attend a friend or family member's Catholic baptism of an infant? If so, how is it any different? For me, the SSM by itself is a sinful action. A baptism of an infant is not necessarily a sinful act but just a dead work. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, JulieM said: Well, that is what I was objecting to. You appeared to oppose by giving a rep point to T-Shirt. i do have objections to a 45 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. You seem to have qualms with me having that "moral qualm". Then you are mistaken in your inference. My reason for giving T-shirt a rep point is just as I stated it. I agreed with him that it appears there are some circumstances that might cause you on principal to stay away from a wedding; it's just that gay marriage is not among those circumstances. I guess that just means we differ on the heinousness of entering into the practice of homosexual behavior and solemnizing that intent with a vow or covenant. Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
BlueDreams Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: For me, the SSM by itself is a sinful action. A baptism of an infant is not necessarily a sinful act but just a dead work. Not according to scripture. According to scripture it (infant baptism) is a gross error, mocking Christ's atonement, and people who believe in it are lacking faith, hope, and charity and are in the bonds of iniquity. The practice is called awful wickedness not once, but twice. It's not just a dead work. With luv, BD Edited March 17, 2016 by BlueDreams 2
carbon dioxide Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: Not according to scripture. According to scripture it (infant baptism) is a gross act, mocking Christ's atonement, and people who believe in it are lacking faith, hope, and charity and are in the bonds of iniquity. The practice is called awful wickedness not once, but twice. It's not just a dead work. With luv, BD You are correct as it is a mockery of the atonement ect but that is to the overall doctrinal concept but are the the parents who have it done are going to stand condemned before God for doing it? I don't believe they are. They are simply following their cultural or religious beliefs and the baby is actually involved in the action is not accountable for anything. I also don't think that Catholics or others today are exactly the same as the Nephites. The Nephites knew better by rejected the truth. Those doing it today misunderstand the doctrine of baptism but they did not rebel like the Nephites did. It is not great to do things the Lord does not like. But to know the doctrine, reject it for something else that is really bad. There are some similarities but also clear differences Edited March 17, 2016 by carbon dioxide 1
Popular Post Sky Posted March 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) You know, when I got married in the temple, we held a ring-ceremony afterwards so I could include my inactive and ex-Mormon family members. And without reservation, they all attended. They don't support the LDS Church in any way, but they support and love me. None of them chose to sit outside the temple until we came out. And I can't say that I blame them! I wouldn't either. Imagine if I had "come out" to all of my friends and family as a gay man beforehand, but that I was soon going to marry a woman in a Mormon temple! I wonder how many of them would have showed up to support me then? So, if one of my gay siblings chose to marry a person of the same gender, I don't see why I couldn't extend the same love and courtesy to them that they extended to me. They know that I'm a Mormon. They know my personal moral compass and how I choose to live my life. I think that preaches a louder sermon to them than choosing to not attend their wedding! Keeping family relationships intact is absolutely crucial. If we really want our families to be together forever, we have to love them and include them in our lives as much as possible. We are not going to win anybody over to our side by any form of shunning. Edited March 17, 2016 by Sky 8
Scott Lloyd Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: Not according to scripture. According to scripture it (infant baptism) is a gross act, mocking Christ's atonement, and people who believe in it are lacking faith, hope, and charity and are in the bonds of iniquity. The practice is called awful wickedness not once, but twice. It's not just a dead work. With luv, BD I think smac97 has made a solid case as to why your application of that passage might not be the definitive one.
Recommended Posts