Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have not seen anything stated by our church leaders being "very clear" that sometimes "divorce is preferable".  Maybe statements that at times divorce is necessary for the safety of one of the spouses or the children.  But, even in cases where there is abuse or infidelity, I know our Bishop has been instructed by his leaders to work with the individual and seek repentance.  Divorce is always the last option as the church leaders do not advocate the breaking up a family (most especially when children are involved).  If the person is not repentant or continues to repeat their behavior, then divorce is allowed, but I wouldn't use the word "preferable" and I haven't seen any church leader use that word either.  

Can you provide a statement by church leaders regarding being "very clear" that sometime "divorce is preferable"?   

I'll look to see what I can find on the topic as well.

Once again we are in anecdotal country, and I'm not going to satisfy prurient curiosity by naming specific situations of which I'm aware.  It would be disloyal and unseemly to identify either the abused spouses, parents of abused children, or their Bishops or Stake Presidents who gave that very clear advice.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yeah, we're all hypocrites. Jacob 2 is meaningless. Joseph was a pedophile. Mormons kill kids. 

Any other chestnuts you need to get down on paper?

USU... I just wanna say that we could, should, and (I have faith) CAN have a respectful discussion about the early church's practice of polygamy not being at odds with Jacob 2 without presuming mal-intent or ill-will or throwing around "pedophile" or "Mormons kill kids."  I didn't see any suggestion of that by CB, and it certainly wasn't my intent, either.  Can you see that maybe you may have been more than a touch too defensive here...?  That neither of those points were even up for discussion or being leveled as accusations.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Once again we are in anecdotal country, and I'm not going to satisfy prurient curiosity by naming specific situations of which I'm aware. 

Then it would be best if you stopped making statements such as this one:

"Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case."

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

USU... I just wanna say that we could, should, and (I have faith) CAN have a respectful discussion about the early church's practice of polygamy not being at odds with Jacob 2 without presuming mal-intent or ill-will or throwing around "pedophile" or "Mormons kill kids."  I didn't see any suggestion of that by CB, and it certainly wasn't my intent, either.  Can you see that maybe you may have been more than a touch too defensive here...?  That neither of those points were even up for discussion or being leveled as accusations.

We could, should and can, but, tell me, can I ever trust that you could ever abandon your expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony towards volunteer serants in the Church, who are schlubs like thee and me, just doing their best with the resources at hand?

Or have you finally learned the definition of "to lie?"

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then it would be best if you stopped making statements such as this one:

"Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case."

Who is the Church other than a bunch of schlubs, volunteering their time, treasure and talents dedicated to the following proposition:

 

Quote

[To be] desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

?  Do you think this all happens in a vacuum?  Do you think local leaders aren't in close contact with those up the food chain from them?  Are you even arguing in good faith here?  Just what is your gripe?

Edited August 25, 2017 by USU78

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We could, should and can, but, tell me, can I ever trust that you could ever abandon your expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony towards volunteer serants in the Church, who are schlubs like thee and me, just doing their best with the resources at hand?

Or have you finally learned the definition of "to lie?"

What? I'm sure glad this kind of response is not representative of believing members in general. It's embarrassing. 

I mean I disagree with Daniel a lot, and I think he's straight up wrong on several issues. But I've never seen malice or uncharity.  

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure what this means.  They are definitely not the biological children of a gay couple.  So yes, they very well could be adopted children.  Is there a difference on how you view children? Are there instances where the children are not part of a family because of how they entered the family?  I am just trying to understand your position.  As you can see, your statement really causes confusion.  Perhaps you could clarify by what you meant.  I certainly don't want to make assumptions. But I also want to understand the context your comment was meant to give.

Maybe I could put my questions in context better.  This is what you said:

Whether it is a gay couple or a straight couple that had children from a different partner than their current spouse, what would those dealings look like?  

My questions are simple and sincere. If you don't want to answer them without sidetracking, that's perfectly ok with me. 

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Is a man who enters into a plural marriage arrangement violating the laws of God?

Since the practice of plural marriage in the LDS Church was officially brought to an end by the Church President in the late 1800's, the answer to your question is an emphatic YES.

[Calm]

Elder Christofferson uses the label of "family" for the relationship of children and gay parents  (that is quoting, not scare quotes)

"For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple"

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

He could have just left it at "home setting", he didn't have to add "family" setting.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

...  that we know of.  The rumors about polygs, here and abroad, for example.  The possibility of a local priesthood leader, as perhaps in our instant situation, giving that advice.

When people tell you of their experience, that's not a rumor.  

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

1. 1 hour ago, USU78 said:

And no one's advocating for that.  I think we agree for the most part.  Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case.

When the parent or both parents is living in serious sin, there's no perfect answer.  There are consequences that must be dealt with.  Support and nurturing and security for the child in such a situation is a very important concern, but the risk to that support and nurturing and security was already an issue before repentance became an issue.

Now, I don't believe the Master was advocating for abandoning children in order to be a disciple.  What I do believe, however, and I think I'm on solid ground here, is that our concerns for the "what ifs" of the effects upon our children should never be an impediment to our repentance, even when that repentance requires, as apparently here, divorce.

Thanks for summing this up, USU.  I would like to build on your comments above to try to clarify that, from my perspective, there are still unanswered CFRs from several pages back that have gotten lost and muddled in the shuffle.

1. You're saying that "sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case."  If I understand your earlier posts correctly, you feel that some examples that the Church feels that divorce is preferable are when child abuse or spousal abuse is occurring.  Your words here seem to be suggesting that the Church (in having 'been very clear that [divorce is sometimes preferable] is the case') has explicitly gone on record as being OK or even promoting that "divorce is sometimes preferable," given certain circumstances.  (For the record, I think most people I know would fully agree that divorce is definitely warranted if child or spouse abuse is occurring--I think that it's entirely reasonable for the safety and health of spouses and especially children to be prioritized over saving an unsalvageable marriage).

 

2. With the announcement of the November 2015 policy on children of same-sex couples, the Church (and many posters here) emphasize that this new policy treats the children of married/cohabiting same-sex couples "the same" as the Church's policy regarding the children in polygamist families.  Church leaders have also claimed that the policy was implement "in consideration of" the children of gay couples, and not wanting them to hear conflicting messages at church about their home life--indicating, at least to me, that the Church is attempting to suggest it wouldn't and doesn't want to interfere with the stability/emotional development of children being raised by gay couples. 

 

3. Multiple times over multiple threads (see earlier posts in this thread documenting such), including Calm's own post here in this thread, there has been anecdotal evidence that in countries where polygamy IS legal, the Church has directed it's missionaries to recommend that polygamist families raising children stay together and NOT get baptized.  These claims are not being made by critics of the LDS Faith, as far as I'm aware... all instances of the anecdotal evidence on this board are being given by (I believe?) devout members of the Church.  I have asked for a CFR for this.... As a first step, Calm shard her own personal experience in this post (for which I'm grateful, Calm--thank you!), but I still haven't seen actual documentation, evidence, a letter, a scan, a link, or anything else...  As such, this CFR is still outstanding, and I still welcome further scrutiny and input from our vast experience of posters here to help track any such evidence down. Can ANYONE find ANY actual documented proof (i.e. one of these letters, or an online announcement, or a handbook entry, or anything?) from the Church itself demonstrating that the Church recommends that polygamists raising children not get divorced and don't get baptized....??

 

4. Now--WHY am I asking for this CFR?  Because USU, Scott, and others are suggesting that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce... there's a lot of rhetoric about children having to suffer due to the sins of their parents, the fact that the Church isn't responsible for causing any emotional fall-out that children who's same-sex parents divorce may feel, and that if the children would so-suffer, it's the parents' fault and just the price that any mortal pays in following God's commandments...

 

5. IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, AND IF the anectodal evidence is true that the Church DOES encourage polygamist families raising children to stay together and not get baptized, THEN the November 2015 policy VERY MUCH treats same-sex families DIFFERENTLY than it does polygamist families.

 

6. Additionally, IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, then Elder Christofferson's words suggesting the policy is merciful in it's concern and consideration of wanting to avoid causing children being raised in same-sex families angst/emotional harm seems misplaced and/or insincere--especially if polygamist families raising children aren't advised to divorce and "just let the children suffer the consequences of their parent's sinful (from the Church's perspective) choices to enter a marriage that contradicts what the Church teaches is currently God's law."

I hope this helps sort our at least my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks in advance to any who can help with the CFR for documentation about the Church's stance that missionaries advise polygamist parents not to divorce if they are raising children.

D

Edited August 25, 2017 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My questions are simple and sincere. If you don't want to answer them without sidetracking, that's perfectly ok with me. 

But he is not the only one that's been confused by your statement.

Others have asked, but can you clarify if you're speaking of adoptions within a SSM?  If not, can you state what you mean more clearly if you want answers?

Thanks.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My questions are simple and sincere. If you don't want to answer them without sidetracking, that's perfectly ok with me. 

I never questioned your sincerity.  But I do have to understand your question and the context of how you view other similar situations.

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Who is the Church other than a bunch of schlubs, volunteering their time, treasure and talents dedicated to the following proposition:

 

?  Do you think this all happens in a vacuum?  Do you think local leaders aren't in close contact with those up the food chain from them?  Are you even arguing in good faith here?  Just what is your gripe?

I believe the church leaders won't ever advise a couple with children to divorce (SSM or heterosexual marriage), unless there is abuse involved.  I've stated that repeatedly.  You apparently disagree.

[Daniel2]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We could, should and can, but, tell me, can I ever trust that you could ever abandon your expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony towards volunteer serants in the Church, who are schlubs like thee and me, just doing their best with the resources at hand?

Or have you finally learned the definition of "to lie?"

USU... I strive to be respectful in all of my interactions and characterizations, both with you, with my beloved LDS family member, neighbors, friends, coworkers, and all with whom I come in contact, whether they agree with me or not, and both in Real Life or here on this very Board.

Regarding my former LDS leaders: I am on record MULTIPLE times as saying that I hold no ill-will or malice towards my church leaders who offered me what I originally believed was good advice (when I was a devout Latter-day Saint), but have subsequently believed to be ill-advised advice, but I have also continually said that I don't hold it against them because they were genuinely, sincerely only doing the best they know how to, with the knowledge and experience they had.

I'm confused at your accusation that I've "expressed malice, judgement, uncharity, and sanctimony" towards volunteers in the Church. 

I have no idea what you're referring to when you accuse me of lying.

Are you confusing me with someone else...? 

If not, please provide evidence of your personal accusations toward me.  Consider that a hard CFR.  My hope is that you will abandon the false accusations and we can respectfully focus on the issue and avoid having a productive and informative thread shut down. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Daniel2

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When people tell you of their experience, that's not a rumor.  

Fair enough.  I happen to believe that's the case, just trying to be cautious.

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, USU78 said:

...  that we know of.  The rumors about polygs, here and abroad, for example.  The possibility of a local priesthood leader, as perhaps in our instant situation, giving that advice.

What do you mean with "our instant situation"?  The one in the OP?

If so, I listened to their interview and have read some about their experience online.  Nowhere have they stated that church leaders advised them to divorce.  They were allowed to follow their own path and make their own decisions that felt right for them.  They decided on their own to divorce. 

[USU78]

Just now, JulieM said:

What do you mean with "our instant situation"?  The one in the OP?

If so, I listened to their interview and have read some about their experience online.  Nowhere have they stated that church leaders advised them to divorce.  They were allowed to follow their own path and make their own decisions that felt right for them.  They decided on their own to divorce. 

I don't take the position that these two Saints are required to tell us everything they know.  That's private.  And I allow for the possibility that advice may [and I mean may in the subjunctive, ALarson] have been given either as suggestion of possible course of action or just something to think about.  I agree what's reported is what's reported.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

USU... I strive to be respectful in all of my interactions and characterizations, both with you, with my beloved LDS family member, neighbors, friends, coworkers, and all with whom I come in contact, whether they agree with me or not, and both in Real Life or here on this very Board.

Regarding my former LDS leaders: I am on record MULTIPLE times as saying that I hold no ill-will or malice towards my church leaders who offered me what I originally believed was good advice (when I was a devout Latter-day Saint), but have subsequently believed to be ill-advised advice, but I have also continually said that I don't hold it against them because they were genuinely, sincerely only doing the best they know how to, with the knowledge and experience they had.

I'm confused at your accusation that I've "expressed malice, judgement, uncharity, and sanctimony" towards volunteers in the Church. 

I have no idea what you're referring to when you accuse me of lying.

Are you confusing me with someone else...? 

If not, please provide evidence of your personal accusations toward me.  Consider that a hard CFR.  My hope is that you will abandon the false accusations and we can respectfully focus on the issue and avoid having a productive and informative thread shut down. 

Are you taking the position that you have never accused Church leaders, especially local leaders, of lying?

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Are you taking the position that you have never accused Church leaders, especially local leaders, of lying?

Asking that question of me doesn't address nor answer my CFR nor the substance of my post, nor does it even reflect the substance of your previous accusations at me. 

Please answer the CFR.

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe the church leaders won't ever advise a couple with children to divorce (SSM or heterosexual marriage), unless there is abuse involved.  I've stated that repeatedly.  You apparently disagree.

We lack a common definition of "abuse," apparently.  Now  ...  please note subjunctive mood in the following  ...  IF the Church were to announce an always applicable policy requiring those in homosexual marriages to divorce as a condition of baptism and IF that policy were applicable in all instances, including IF a couple had children, brought into the relationship or adopted or conceived in a petri dish, THEN one COULD conclude as a logical extrapolation from the Proclamation on the Family, Scripture, and prior declarations by general authorities, that the homosexual marriage relationship is in itself abusive of children.  And such an extrapolation would be neither irrational or unkind, since the welfare of the children is of such great importance.

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Asking that question of me doesn't address nor answer my CFR nor the substance of my post, nor does it even reflect the substance of your previous accusations at me. 

Please answer the CFR.

I didn't say you were lying.  I said you were saying they had been lying/were lying.

Those accusations by you are malicious, in the legal sense, since you know or have reason to know they weren't lying.  Do you want me to continue?

Edited August 25, 2017 by USU78

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What do you mean with "our instant situation"?  The one in the OP?

If so, I listened to their interview and have read some about their experience online.  Nowhere have they stated that church leaders advised them to divorce.  They were allowed to follow their own path and make their own decisions that felt right for them.  They decided on their own to divorce. 

Correct.  If USU is claiming that these women were advised by their church leaders to divorce, he may not have listened to their interview.  They made if very clear that they only felt love (from the missionaries, ward members and leaders) no matter what decision they made.   

[Daniel2]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I didn't say you were lying.  I said you were saying they had been lying/were lying.

Those accusations by you are malicious, in the legal sense, since you know or have reason to know they weren't lying.  Do you want me to continue?

Here's what you said:

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

...can I ever trust that you could ever abandon your expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony towards volunteer serants in the Church...?

Or have you finally learned the definition of "to lie?"

CFR that I have ever "expressed malice, judgment, uncharity, and sanctimony towards...servants in the Church."

Start from there.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We lack a common definition of "abuse," apparently.

I hope our definition of "abuse" is the same when applying it to a situation causing a divorce to become necessary for the protection of the other spouse or the children involved.  What definition do you have in mind?  Something different?