Popular Post rodheadlee Posted March 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, ALarson said: Yesterday, I learned from a very close friend of mine that his son is getting married. His son is gay and is marrying his partner of several years. My wife and I are going to be invited to the wedding (a couple hours away). My friend is an extremely active member of the church and is in full support of their son getting married as they really love his partner and are happy for their son. He (their son) served a full time mission and is an incredible young man (I've known him since he was very young). He is no longer active in the church, but has no hatred or animosity towards the church (that I know of or have heard from him). All of his (the son's) siblings are very active in the church, have temple marriages, etc. They all live out of the area and will be flying home to attend the wedding too. They are thrilled for their brother and want to support him. My friend is very happy that all of his children will be there for the wedding. That was interesting to learn as I wondered if they would be coming back home and attending the wedding (I haven't pried or asked how they felt about their brother and his partner). It sounds like this will be a small wedding and will include only family and close friends. What is kind of interesting is that my friend told me the parents of his son's partner are refusing to attend or support his marriage (even though they are very fond of my friend's son). We both commented on that being ironic. The Mormons in the family are supporting the marriage while the nonmember family members of the partner are not supporting it. So, would you attend? . Yeah, I'd go. We are all sinners, Christ sat with the sinners. Shunning people because they are sinners is not Christ like, in my opinion. We are to set our lamps up on the table, not hide it among those just like us.How else can you be an example for someone to follow? How can they see your joy in your Christ, your Heavenly Father, your mate and children if they don't get to know you? Edited March 17, 2016 by rodheadlee 12
BlueDreams Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. There are some similarities but also clear differences And if they were previously mormon and changed faiths (especially without resigning like many do)? What if the people getting married were never LDS or were also previously LDS and change faiths? Does their previous beliefs alter one's expectations or whether its ok for an active LDS person to participate? This isn't a clear difference to me....it seems more like splitting hairs. In my mind, if I was going to not passively attend one condemned mockery before God's laws around marriage, i probably shouldn't passively attend another more explicitly described mockery before God's Atonement. The method of repentance for one is the only obvious difference to me (one situation would be more difficult to rectify in the here-and-now because of legal ties and possible children later involved...And if one was ok attending a polygamous marriage that argument would be null and void anyways). But in neither scenario is there any expectation of discussing why they need to let go their false practices and traditions. It's more basic than that...it's passive attendance. Off to bed... With luv, BD Edited March 17, 2016 by BlueDreams 3
Calm Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 34 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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 So all those who choose SSM out of ignorance, there is no problem attending their marriages? And those LDS who convert to Catholicism and choose to baptize their infant children, there would be a problem in attending in your view?
Popular Post sunstoned Posted March 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 17, 2016 13 hours ago, ALarson said: Yesterday, I learned from a very close friend of mine that his son is getting married. His son is gay and is marrying his partner of several years. My wife and I are going to be invited to the wedding (a couple hours away). My friend is an extremely active member of the church and is in full support of their son getting married as they really love his partner and are happy for their son. He (their son) served a full time mission and is an incredible young man (I've known him since he was very young). He is no longer active in the church, but has no hatred or animosity towards the church (that I know of or have heard from him). All of his (the son's) siblings are very active in the church, have temple marriages, etc. They all live out of the area and will be flying home to attend the wedding too. They are thrilled for their brother and want to support him. My friend is very happy that all of his children will be there for the wedding. That was interesting to learn as I wondered if they would be coming back home and attending the wedding (I haven't pried or asked how they felt about their brother and his partner). It sounds like this will be a small wedding and will include only family and close friends. What is kind of interesting is that my friend told me the parents of his son's partner are refusing to attend or support his marriage (even though they are very fond of my friend's son). We both commented on that being ironic. The Mormons in the family are supporting the marriage while the nonmember family members of the partner are not supporting it. So, would you attend? . If not attending a family wedding such as this is in any way based on religious beliefs, then I say it is time to reevaluate those beliefs. 5
The Nehor Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I honestly do not think people read enough into my actions to judge my faithfulness to my religious principles based on what weddings I go to. Anyone who does care that much is probably insane in some way. 3
6EQUJ5 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: I honestly do not think people read enough into my actions to judge my faithfulness to my religious principles based on what weddings I go to. Anyone who does care that much is probably insane in some way. Indeed. And if one feels they must NOT attend a wedding to demonstrate to other their religious conviction, then perhaps there are areas where Gospel-living could be improved in day-to-day life.
BlueDreams Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 12 hours ago, T-Shirt said: I don't believe I have misrepresented you at all. Marriage is legal in six states for 15 year olds with parental consent. You don't like it because your personal standards deem it to be immoral. It is no different from those who choose not to attend a same sex wedding on moral grounds. The fact that a 15 year old is a minor is irrelevant, the parents and the state believe the child is mature enough, your objection is based purely on your own moral position. No difference. No it's not...because if the parents didn't consent their sexual relationship is statutory rape and can be processed by law as criminal and taking advantage of a minor. Even if the parents consented there's a likelihood the teen doesn't actually want to marry someone their parent's age and it's very likely their "consent" is also their coercion. And that's before you get into health risks for teen pregnancy and the general emotional capacity for the teen to have developed a healthy independent voice to speak up and have their (likely her) opinion matter in the marriage itself.There's a BIG difference. Again I don't think comparing potentially illegal, criminal, or drug-related behavior is helpful. Wirh luv, BD 2
cdowis Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Thanks for the invitation, but I'll be cleaning out the attic. Maybe next time.
The Nehor Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Indeed. And if one feels they must NOT attend a wedding to demonstrate to other their religious conviction, then perhaps there are areas where Gospel-living could be improved in day-to-day life. I would agree but I think there are other, more mundane reasons not to attend. If you are made deeply uncomfortable by such a wedding I think that is a good reason not to go. There are other good reasons but demonstrating your beliefs does not seem to me to be one of them.
busybee Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 14 hours 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. That is untrue. I have just attended a funeral of one of our ward members and a gay man sang a solo at the service in the LDS chapel 100 yards from the temple. And at previous funerals, non-member family members have given talks paying tribute to the deceased. What you describe may be a US thing, but it is definitely NOT a church thing. Sorry.
DJBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 22 hours ago, ALarson said: Yesterday, I learned from a very close friend of mine that his son is getting married. His son is gay and is marrying his partner of several years. My wife and I are going to be invited to the wedding (a couple hours away). My friend is an extremely active member of the church and is in full support of their son getting married as they really love his partner and are happy for their son. He (their son) served a full time mission and is an incredible young man (I've known him since he was very young). He is no longer active in the church, but has no hatred or animosity towards the church (that I know of or have heard from him). All of his (the son's) siblings are very active in the church, have temple marriages, etc. They all live out of the area and will be flying home to attend the wedding too. They are thrilled for their brother and want to support him. My friend is very happy that all of his children will be there for the wedding. That was interesting to learn as I wondered if they would be coming back home and attending the wedding (I haven't pried or asked how they felt about their brother and his partner). It sounds like this will be a small wedding and will include only family and close friends. What is kind of interesting is that my friend told me the parents of his son's partner are refusing to attend or support his marriage (even though they are very fond of my friend's son). We both commented on that being ironic. The Mormons in the family are supporting the marriage while the nonmember family members of the partner are not supporting it. So, would you attend? . No. I would not attend. Participation in such a wedding legitimizes the union. If a loved one invited you to a seance, would you attend? In my opinion, a same-sex wedding is really the heart of Babylonian celebration. Hard to reconcile that with Isaiah 52:11: Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. Elder Oaks has said as much in interviews. My 2 cents. 1
MorningStar Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I wouldn't attend because I don't feel like Heavenly Father would approve of me supporting their union. I feel it is great sadness to Him and I can't take part in continuing to normalize it in our society or in my children's eyes I also skipped my best friend's 30th birthday party that I had already paid $40 towards for the hotel because it turned out it was to be an evening of bar hopping, which I didn't know when the party planner invited me. My friend totally understood. To go out to dinner and for my friends to have drinks is one thing, but I couldn't support that particular activity. If I had a friend who opened a coffee shop and had a grand opening, I would go and order a hot chocolate because I don't consider coffee drinking to be morally wrong. 2
ttribe Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, DJBrown said: No. I would not attend. Participation in such a wedding legitimizes the union. Your attendance legitimizes someone else's marriage?! My, you must be a big-timer. Edited March 17, 2016 by ttribe 2
smac97 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 14 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Jeanne, from my perspective, it's unfortunate that when it comes to attending temple wedding ceremonies Attending temple weddings is a unique and particular circumstance. Attendance is simply not feasible for those who do not hold a current temple recommend. And there are plenty of people in and out of the Church in such circumstances. So it's not like the Church is being mendacious or vindictive about this, nor are they targeting former members of the Church or homosexual persons. But of course, we knew all of this already. A couple who chooses to to marry in the temple know ahead of time that some friends and relatives will not be able to attend. But they choose to proceed because of sacred and deeply-held beliefs. Meanwhile, couples all over the place choose to get married in unusual or remote locations, knowing ahead of time that many of their friends and relatives will not be able to attend (due to distance, expense, etc.). Choosing an exotic venue is often done for relatively trivial reasons (glitz n' glamour, bragging rights, cool pics on Facebook, 'cuz they "just felt like it," etc.), and yet nobody hectors this couple or their religion for choosing such a venue. Give it a rest, already. Quote 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. First, I'm not familiar with restrictions on attending funerals in LDS chapels. Everyone is welcome. Can you expound on who is "prevented" from participating in a funeral in an LDS chapel? I have reviewed section 18.6.4 of Handbook 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions, and there is no mention of "prevent{ing} those of us who have left the church" from participating. Second, funerals are not "hosted in LDS chapels." A funeral is a meeting/service conducted by the Church. It is a religious service. Third, there is no requirement that LDS funerals take place in the chapel. The family makes that decision. Fourth, if the family chooses to request a funeral service in an LDS chapel, then they are requesting that the Church conduct a religious service in a consecrated building. And they know ahead of time that it will be conducted per the guidelines promulgated by the Church. Fifth, the Church's guidelines for funerals are eminently reasonable. Quote 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. I have no idea what you are talking about. LDS funerals are open to anyone and everyone (except, I suppose, people who are disruptive, violent, etc.). We had a funeral in our ward a while back that involved a family that is almost entirely inactive. The decedent's circle of friends were mostly non-LDS, but his mother asked that the funeral take place in our building. Family and friends were quite pleased with how the services were performed by the bishop, with one exception: because the decedent was something of a cowboy, they wanted the prelude music to be "cowboy" music ("The Yellow Rose of Texas" and such). The bishop explained that this would not be appropriate during the service itself, but that such music could be played during the luncheon (also held at the church building, with the food provided by members of our ward). The family concurred with this and later said that having the decedent's favorite music playing during the luncheon actually worked out better because it sparked a lot of reminisces and discussions between family and friends, which they could not have done during the service itself. I sense in this thread a certain level of intolerance with LDS belief and practice. That is unfortunate, I think. Openness, "diversity," inclusivity, etc. are apparently doors that only swing one way. Thanks, -Smac 3
smac97 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 28 minutes ago, MorningStar said: I wouldn't attend because I don't feel like Heavenly Father would approve of me supporting their union. I feel it is great sadness to Him and I can't take part in continuing to normalize it in our society or in my children's eyes I also skipped my best friend's 30th birthday party that I had already paid $40 towards for the hotel because it turned out it was to be an evening of bar hopping, which I didn't know when the party planner invited me. My friend totally understood. To go out to dinner and for my friends to have drinks is one thing, but I couldn't support that particular activity. If I had a friend who opened a coffee shop and had a grand opening, I would go and order a hot chocolate because I don't consider coffee drinking to be morally wrong. I'm sorry, MS. You cannot make principled distinctions and decisions like this. You either support your friend by going barhopping with him, or else you are a hater. Which is it? -Smac 1
BlueDreams Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: I sense in this thread a certain level of intolerance with LDS belief and practice. That is unfortunate, I think. Openness, "diversity," inclusivity, etc. are apparently doors that only swing one way. Thanks, -Smac That's odd to sense considering a number of us disagreeing are practicing LDS believers....and many of those don't believe in SSM in their religious context (including myself). With luv, BD 2
Jeanne Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 14 hours ago, Duncan said: Hand held diabetes but SO GOOD!!!!! They always serve them at weddings!!! http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/nanaimo-bars-89644 Oh...wow...yeah..I could go for that. Thanks guys...I am about to put on about 10 pounds! 1
Jeanne Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: The Kool-Aid is strong in this one. It's a scary world that puts anything over family. 1
pogi Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, smac97 said: I've generally thought Moroni 8 to be a denunciation of apostate behavior. Jeff Lindsay put it this way: Then you are missing the point. Moroni 8 was not included in the Book of Mormon as a history lesson about the denunciation of ancient apostate behavior. It was included in the Book of Mormon as a doctrinal guide and foundation for our day, to understand that the baptism of little children is an "evil abomination" not to be practiced. Moroni 8 is basically the Lord's answer to Mormon's prayerful inquiry regarding the doctrinal merits of infant baptism. If you think Moroni 8 is just a history lesson, you are missing the doctrinal significance. The tone that we use today may be less harsh, but the doctrine is still the same - it is an "abomination" according to scripture. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: That's pretty much my view. So I don't think today's Catholics should be held to the same standard vis-à-vis performance of ordinances that Mormon used to condemn apostate behavior "in 300-something A.D." That being the case, I would happily attend a friend or family member's Catholic baptism of an infant. For me, I can differentiate between Catholic "traditions of their fathers, which are not correct" and celebrating/endorsing a same-sex wedding. Let me get this straight, you will only attend an apostate and abominable ceremony, if said abomination has been around long enough in society? If you could live long enough, say a few hundred/thousand years (like infant baptism) to where it is not so fresh and rebellious, you may attend a gay wedding? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps that is your problem, you seem to be viewing gay marriage as a rebellious act. Let me put it another way, when an abominable ceremony gets old enough, your attendance will no longer be perceived as "celebrating/endorsing" the act, and will only be perceived as celebratory/endorsing if it is a relatively new ceremony? That makes no sense. It sounds like your non-attendance is more of a political statement and stance against the relatively new ceremony, than it is about any moral compass. Otherwise, your moral compass seems to diminish with time. Who is talking about holding anybody to any standard? Those performing infant baptism and participating in gay marriage obviously don't hold our standards and we shouldn't hold them to our standards. Both are considered apostate and abominable ceremonies according to the church and scripture, and your attendance to either one should be viewed as morally equivalent. Edited March 17, 2016 by pogi 2
Ahab Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 22 hours ago, The Nehor said: Because your not being there may inflict more pain than your standing for principles mitigates. All the more reason to not attend. And the message I would hope to get across is that I wholeheartedly do not approve of same sex marriages for anybody, ever. My wife and I have already refused to attend her sister's wedding to her same sex "partner" and if any other such opportunity ever came up we would not attend that one either, regardless of whether they are friends or family. And we wouldn't respond to an invitation with a letter of explanation either unless they asked for an explanation. We would most likely just not show up. Most people who know my wife and I already know our religious convictions and how we feel about same sex marriages so if they were to invite us anyway we would consider it to be a blatant disregard for our personal feelings and our religious convictions. And anybody who doesn't know us very well but would invite us anyway probably wouldn't even realize that we were not there.
ALarson Posted March 17, 2016 Author Posted March 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: And we wouldn't respond to an invitation with a letter of explanation either unless they asked for an explanation. We would most likely just not show up. Wow, how considerate of you. You don't have to write a "letter", but it's common courtesy to RSVP and rude to just not reply and then not show up.
Ahab Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 22 hours ago, Mars said: yeah i'd probably go. most people know where i stand. refusing to attend would only cause further damage to the relationship. That particular type of relationship shouldn't even exist so if I wholeheartedly endorse destroying any that do exist and doing whatever I can do with a good conscience to prevent any more from happening.
T-Shirt Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 14 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". I have no problem with you choosing to not attend a wedding between a fifteen year old and a 45 year old based on your personal moral compass. I just find it a tad hypocritical when you get so indignant over someone who chooses not to attend a same sex marriage for the same reason. Incidentally, I have not shared what my position is on either of these issues. I am just pointing out that there seems be a double standard. 1
Ahab Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Wow, how considerate of you. You don't have to write a "letter", but it's common courtesy to RSVP and rude to just not reply and then not show up. I'm perfectly fine with being rude if it helps to get my point across and I think RSVPs should serve only to let people know who IS coming.
Recommended Posts