Would You Attend A Wedding For A SSM?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

That's long been obvious around here...

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The Kool-Aid is strong in this one.

He's just paraphrasing the bible.   Every Christian of every denomination knows that God must come first-it's the most important rule of the religion.  The first and greatest command to love God above everything else doesn't seem all that scandalizing (or kool-aid reference worthy).

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.  

And you know this . . . how?  CFR, if you please.

Quote

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.  

Within the Church, yes.  Again, Jeff Lindsay addressed this well:

Quote

{M}y mind turned to Moroni 8 and it occurred to me that verse 14 is troubling in a modern setting, but Mormon's harsh words were not written about modern sincere believers in Christ who have been raised with infant baptism as part of their traditions of faith. When he was writing in the fourth century, before the final collapse of his people, he was desperately striving to stamp out recently kindled fires of apostasy set by theological arsonists. His targets were wicked apostates who were denying the mercy and justness of God and perverting the ways of God. It wasn't just a misunderstanding that they and all their peers had inherited, but a perversion they were introducing, presumably for their own gain. 

I am not aware of an exegesis of this passage by a prophet or other general authority.  But Jeff's is, to me, sensible.

Quote

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.  

I don't think it "is just a history lesson."  And I think I have a grasp of its "doctrinal significance."  Applied in our day, I think it is better applied as a cautionary tale against malicious apostate behavior in the Church, rather than as a condemnation of 21st-century Catholic baptism of infants.  I think this practice is, in a very broad and LDS-centric context, misguided and done without authority.  But I generally don't view the religious practices of other faith traditions through such a tightly-focused lens.  The Catholics believe what they are doing is good and benevolent.  In this I am guided by Alma 21:17 (emphasis added):

Quote

17 And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct.

Notice here the apparent differentiation between "sins" and "traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  I think Catholic baptism of infants falls into the latter category.  And within their paradigm, I think Catholics are better off observing their traditions, even if in the eternal scheme they are "not correct," than abandoning such traditions in exchange for ... nothing.

As a missionary in Taiwan I observed the Church take a very kind and, I think, appropriate approach to local traditions pertaining to so-called "Ancestor Worship" (though "Ancestor Veneration" would probably be the more apt description).  The Church actually authorized members of the Church to participate in ceremonies which some would view as inappropriate, but I thought it was great.  Here's how it went down:

Quote

Because many Taiwanese converts are younger adults, Church leaders are particularly sensitive to parental issues. “We encourage people investigating the Church to talk to their parents and tell them what they are learning about,” says Yeh Chen Meng, president of the Kaohsiung stake. “It’s important that parents see the difference the gospel makes in their children’s lives.”

Karl Robert Koerner, who served a mission to Taiwan more than 30 years ago and recently served as president of the Taichung mission, has given much thought to the practice of ancestor worship. “When Taiwanese people join the Church, they stop worshiping other gods, but there may be some practices that are hard to stop. This is because of family expectations and pressure and a desire on the member’s part to obey another commandment, that of honoring your father and mother,” President Koerner says.

Yang Tsung Ting, president of the Taipei West stake, explains, “Most Taiwanese parents expect that when they die, their children will burn paper money and incense for them and offer food. Otherwise they fear they will be hungry and poor in the next life. That is why older people sometimes panic when they see their young people join the Church.”

For President Koerner, the crucial difference lies in a person’s inner purpose and intent rather than in his or her outward performance. “Showing respect for and honoring our deceased loved ones is in complete harmony with gospel principles, but what to one person is a religious and spiritual ritual to another is simply a way of showing respect to deceased ancestors, no more a religious ritual than the custom of placing flowers on a grave. For example, two people could be performing what appears to be the same rite of ancestor worship, each bowing reverently several times before a wooden tablet listing the names of deceased relatives. The one could easily be in harmony with the precepts of the gospel, while the other is in opposition to what the Lord has commanded.”

I think A) differentiating, to the extent possible, between "sin" and "incorrect traditions," B) making reasonable and thoughtful accommodations for important and well-intentioned traditions (such as veneration of ancestors as described above), C) viewing such traditions in the most charitable light possible, and D) remembering the 11th Article of Faith ("We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."), we Latter-day Saints can rather easily come to appreciate and respect the religious observances of other faiths.

Quote

The tone that we use today may be less harsh, but the doctrine is still the same - it is an abomination according to scripture.

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, give gay marriage a few hundred/thousand years and you may attend?  Is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  See above.

In my view, Catholics baptizing infants is, at worst, an incorrect tradition.  In contrast, same-sex marriage is fundamentally incompatible with The Law of Chastity, with the Restored Gospel, and with my personal moral code.  I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Quote

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.  

That's the nature of strawmen arguments.  They aren't supposed to make sense.  They are supposed to look unreasonable.  That is why you are relying on a strawman instead of . . . what I have actually said.

Quote

It sounds like your non-attendance is 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. 

Tell you what: I'll tell you what I think, and you can then tell me what you think.  Reciprocity, it's called.  Also, I will refrain from telling you what you think, and you can refrain from telling me what I think.  How's that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[T-Shirt]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Now you're introducing a whole lot of hypotheticals to justify your position.  I understand you feel a marriage of this type goes against your moral compass, that is fine.  That is the whole point.  Why is your moral objection better than someone elses?  In order for a fifteen year old to marry, it must be approved by parents to make it legal.  Why is your moral judgement better than the parent's or the State's?  There is no difference whatsoever between your objection to marriage of minors and the objection of others to same sex marriage.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's long been obvious around here...

Good to know.

And thank you for stating the obvious ONE MORE TIME!!!

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

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.

Where did I state I wouldn't attend a wedding between a 45 year old and a 15 year old?  I wouldn't be in favor of such a marriage or support it, but that doesn't mean I'd refuse to attend (it would depend on the circumstances.)

And, where did I get "so indignant over someone who chooses not to attend a same sex marriage"?

Please supply these quotes.

Edited March 17, 2016 by JulieM

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It's a scary world that puts anything over family.

It’s a scary world that would never -- under any circumstances -- put anything over personal relationships.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It's a scary world that puts anything over family.

So if your family was into criminal behaviour that harmed others, you believe that it would be scary for a family member to consider reporting his family to the police?

[Jim Stiles]

On 3/16/2016 at 1:16 PM, 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?

.

Not if the "wedding" was officiated by anyone other than a civil magistrate.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Good to know.

And thank you for stating the obvious ONE MORE TIME!!!

Thought you would appreciate the affirmation.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

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. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And you know this . . . how?  CFR, if you please.

Within the Church, yes.  Again, Jeff Lindsay addressed this well:

I am not aware of an exegesis of this passage by a prophet or other general authority.  But Jeff's is, to me, sensible.

I don't think it "is just a history lesson."  And I think I have a grasp of its "doctrinal significance."  Applied in our day, I think it is better applied as a cautionary tale against malicious apostate behavior in the Church, rather than as a condemnation of 21st-century Catholic baptism of infants.  I think this practice is, in a very broad and LDS-centric context, misguided and done without authority.  But I generally don't view the religious practices of other faith traditions through such a tightly-focused lens.  The Catholics believe what they are doing is good and benevolent.  In this I am guided by Alma 21:17 (emphasis added):

Notice here the apparent differentiation between "sins" and "traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  I think Catholic baptism of infants falls into the latter category.  And within their paradigm, I think Catholics are better off observing their traditions, even if in the eternal scheme they are "not correct," than abandoning such traditions in exchange for ... nothing.

As a missionary in Taiwan I observed the Church take a very kind and, I think, appropriate approach to local traditions pertaining to so-called "Ancestor Worship" (though "Ancestor Veneration" would probably be the more apt description).  The Church actually authorized members of the Church to participate in ceremonies which some would view as inappropriate, but I thought it was great.  Here's how it went down:

I think A) differentiating, to the extent possible, between "sin" and "incorrect traditions," B) making reasonable and thoughtful accommodations for important and well-intentioned traditions (such as veneration of ancestors as described above), C) viewing such traditions in the most charitable light possible, and D) remembering the 11th Article of Faith ("We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."), we Latter-day Saints can rather easily come to appreciate and respect the religious observances of other faiths.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  See above.

In my view, Catholics baptizing infants is, at worst, an incorrect tradition.  In contrast, same-sex marriage is fundamentally incompatible with The Law of Chastity, with the Restored Gospel, and with my personal moral code.  I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

That's the nature of strawmen arguments.  They aren't supposed to make sense.  They are supposed to look unreasonable.  That is why you are relying on a strawman instead of . . . what I have actually said.

Tell you what: I'll tell you what I think, and you can then tell me what you think.  Reciprocity, it's called.  Also, I will refrain from telling you what you think, and you can refrain from telling me what I think.  How's that?

Thanks,

-Smac

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:
 

Quote

 

And now, my son, I speak unto yu concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

 

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.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

23 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Now you're introducing a whole lot of hypotheticals to justify your position.  I understand you feel a marriage of this type goes against your moral compass, that is fine.  That is the whole point.  Why is your moral objection better than someone elses?  In order for a fifteen year old to marry, it must be approved by parents to make it legal.  Why is your moral judgement better than the parent's or the State's?  There is no difference whatsoever between your objection to marriage of minors and the objection of others to same sex marriage.

It's not hypothetical....they're likely causes for marriages between a 15 yr old and a 45 yr old in the U.S. (see here). The people that it's likely to happen to may be coerced, it can stunt their childhood and life capacities (education, power to make decisions, etc). And it is usually pressured by their family or community. You can't split a hypothetical from its realistic context. If, hypothetically, there was somehow a wedding with "consent" or desire to do so from the 15 year old as well as the 45, I may be able to swallow my general disgust and go to the wedding, because I would want the 15 year old to know that I am safe to come to if ever there is need. Such a marriage is a potential breeder of abuse and a sense of isolation.

For me (and I hope just about everybody here) there is a massive difference between SSM and a marriage of a minor to a man the age of their father. It's hitting a different set of moral contexts. If the 15 yr old and 45 yr old were both male or both female and they were marrying I'd have similar concerns and I would also likely not attend because I don't want to be complicit to coerced marriages and potential later marital rape. It's not the matter of who's marrying, it's a matter of whether consent is even possible. My moral compass is universal on that one...if one partner can obviously not give the same level of consent or would have likely far less power or say in the marriage about how their lives are run, I'll have a problem...gay, straight, polygamous, or polyandrous. My reasons for attending were also the same: to support or show love of a friend and to witness that I will recognize them as an important part of my life, even if I do not agree with their rites as having theological validity or are choices I wouldn't personally make for my life. So I could attend a bar mitzvah. I could attend an infant baptism. I could attend a hindu wedding. And I could attend a gay one too. And I may not attend any of these if they're not really close to me or a good friend....because that's not what I do. 

My moral judgment is better than the state and parents because I've seen and heard enough abuse within both systems to know that sometimes either can be terribly wrong with very dangerous consequences to human lives. Gay marriage, in and of itself, isn't likely to lead to temporal injury, abuse, or damage...it's not going to drastically alter how their relationship with said person would be like from before the marriage. And the spiritual decisions have been made well before then of their own will. I can accept that their paths will not be as I would walk.  

But if you can't see the difference between a gay marriage between 2 consenting adults who are choosing this out of their own decisions and care v a teen who is likely not consenting and doing this because she/he's been pushed to than I am so sorry for you.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if your family was into criminal behaviour that harmed others, you believe that it would be scary for a family member to consider reporting his family to the police?

I do have a family member who has been in federal prison for criminal behavior..for drugs..and has hurt so many in his decision making.  That being said, when he wrote me and begged me to write letters..I did..I sent money for his daily supplies..and we wrote eachother and talked a lot about his deceased mother and his problems and set goals.  Today he is out..hard to get a job but finally got one..he is now able to be a father to his children.  You can change the world ..even a little bit for people by being supportive in the right way.  This is why I am "Aunt Jeanne Grandma"...!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, busybee said:

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.

I'm not aware of it being a U.S. thing either.

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, busybee said:

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.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Busybee. 

As you describe, it is true that non-members and former-members may sing in funeral services, and non-Latter-day Saints who've never been LDS can speak at funerals from the pulpit.  And it's also true that anyone, regardless of membership/non-membership status, can attend a funeral in an LDS chapel.

However, what I said is entirely accurate: the LDS Church's handbook specifically prevents those of us who have left the church from speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels. 

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 Pleasant Grove bishop and Stake Presidency to allow me to speak at my father's funeral this past January.  After resigning over 10 years ago on the East Coast, I moved in with my parents 8 years ago to help my Mom with my Dad's failing health due to a terminal disease.  The local ward members have been my friends throughout that time and know me well, as I would often help my Mom with Dad and attend with them so he could attend.  And although I am vocal in supporting pro-gay initiatives on forums like this, when attending church in person, I am and have always been respectful and non-confrontational--I never even made an issue of my status as a former member or even as a gay man (although everyone in the ward knew already, due to knowing my parents). 

However, the local leadership insisted that the handbook is very clear (and they showed my brothers and I exactly what it says): individuals who have been excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or have had their names removed can never be "the lone voice" in speaking from the pulpit at any LDS meeting.  They can sing (as my husband and I have done in our local ward in previous years), but never speak from the pulpit.

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.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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, since it warns against creeping heresy within the Church of Jesus Christ.

Hmm.  I hadn't thought about Moroni 8 in that way.  Mormon was speaking against some of the Lord's covenant people who had corrupted and distorted a sacred  saving ordinance, and had created "disputations" about it within the church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Busybee. 

As you describe, it is true that non-members and former-members may sing in funeral services, and non-Latter-day Saints who've never been LDS can speak at funerals from the pulpit.

However, what I said is entirely accurate: the LDS Church's handbook specifically prevents those of us who have left the church from speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels. 

CFR, please.  (I don't doubt you.  I would just like to read it for myself.)

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT: Never mind.  I think I understand now.

Edited March 17, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Busybee. 

As you describe, it is true that non-members and former-members may sing in funeral services, and non-Latter-day Saints who've never been LDS can speak at funerals from the pulpit.

However, what I said is entirely accurate: the LDS Church's handbook specifically prevents those of us who have left the church from speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels. 

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 Pleasant Grove bishop and Stake Presidency to allow me to speak at my father's funeral this past January.  After resigning over 10 years ago on the East Coast, I moved in with my parents 8 years ago to help my Mom with my Dad's failing health due to a terminal disease.  The local ward members have been my friends throughout that time and know me well, as I would often help my Mom with Dad and attend with them so he could attend.  And although I am vocal in supporting LDS initiatives on forums like this, when attending church, when visiting the church in person, I am and have always been respectful and non-confrontational--I never even made an issue of my status as a former member or even as a gay man.  However, the local leadership insisted that the handbook is very clear (and they showed my brothers and I exactly what it says): individuals who have been excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or have had their names removed can never be "the lone voice" in speaking from the pulpit.  They can sing (as my husband and I have done in our local ward), but never speak.

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.

I am curious why the services were conducted at the church building, thus making it a church service subject to the provisions of the CHI, as opposed to having the services at a funeral home where the family would have had total control of who said what.  

This would have been a win-win.  You would have been able to speak, and the bishop would not have been pressured to disregard the instructions in the CHI (and thereafter publicly accused by you of lacking "compassion or charity" and "causing distress and despair" - rather a cheap shot, BTW).  As it was, the bishop was put in a no-win situation, which seems unfortunate.

Feel free to disregard this inquiry, as it is a private matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 17, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I hadn't thought about Moroni 8 in that way.  Mormon was speaking against some of the Lord's covenant people who had corrupted and distorted a sacred  saving ordinance, and had created "disputations" about it within the church.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said, it's a "broader application." But I see a couple of parallels.

First, the pressure from some of our own people for the Church to change its stance and embrace homosexual behavior strikes me as a "gross error" (to use the wording in Moroni 8), or it would be if such thinking would ever be allowed to hold sway.

And second, such internal pressure is causing "disputations among [us]" (again, drawing wording from Moroni 8).

So yes, I see a broad application there. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Edited to add:

I could easily conceive of Moroni or someone like him in our day who has authority writing a letter to a bishop or a branch president in some distant locale and sternly warning and explaining why the notion of same-sex "marriage" must not be allowed to take hold within the Church of Jesus Christ.

In fact, isn't that pretty much what transpired with the recent handbook revision?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

But if you can't see the difference between a gay marriage between 2 consenting adults who are choosing this out of their own decisions and care v a teen who is likely not consenting and doing this because she/he's been pushed to than I am so sorry for you.

 

 

Could one not "see the difference" while, at the same time, strongly disapprove of both for separate reasons?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

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?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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.

I would not go to that age gap wedding because it would make me VERY uncomfortable.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Busybee. 

As you describe, it is true that non-members and former-members may sing in funeral services, and non-Latter-day Saints who've never been LDS can speak at funerals from the pulpit.

However, what I said is entirely accurate: the LDS Church's handbook specifically prevents those of us who have left the church from speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels. 

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 Pleasant Grove bishop and Stake Presidency to allow me to speak at my father's funeral this past January.  After resigning over 10 years ago on the East Coast, I moved in with my parents 8 years ago to help my Mom with my Dad's failing health due to a terminal disease.  The local ward members have been my friends throughout that time and know me well, as I would often help my Mom with Dad and attend with them so he could attend.  And although I am vocal in supporting LDS initiatives on forums like this, when attending church, when visiting the church in person, I am and have always been respectful and non-confrontational--I never even made an issue of my status as a former member or even as a gay man.  However, the local leadership insisted that the handbook is very clear (and they showed my brothers and I exactly what it says): individuals who have been excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or have had their names removed can never be "the lone voice" in speaking from the pulpit.  They can sing (as my husband and I have done in our local ward), but never speak.

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.

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am curious why the services were conducted at the church building, thus making it a church service subject to the provisions of the CHI, as opposed to having the services at a funeral home where the family would have had total control of who said what.  

This would have been a win-win.  You would have been able to speak, and the bishop would not have been pressured to disregard the instructions in the CHI (and thereafter publicly accused by you of lacking "compassion or charity" and "causing distress and despair" - rather a cheap shot, BTW).  As it was, the bishop was put in a no-win situation, which seems unfortunate.

Feel free to disregard this inquiry, as it is a private matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

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'?"

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. In my view Daniel was rather restrained and generous in his assessment. Yours is the cheap shot. The bishop and SP inflicted unnecessary pain on an already grieving family. That's a cheap shot.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would not go to that age gap wedding because it would make me VERY uncomfortable.

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."