Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

For a church that teaches the principle of divorce in order to become a member.  A solid win.  (Something that I personally find quite counter to the teachings of Christ.  But I understand the church's reasoning)

For a couple who think the only way to follow the teachings of Christ is through divorce and baptism, I wish them both all the happiness and joy this decision will give them in both this life and the one to come.

Sometimes these things work out.  Sometimes they don't   Time will tell.  I am reminded of a good friend of mine who I knew through Evergreen.  He had a boyfriend and lived in Hawaii for many years.  Through the patience and long suffering of his parents, he decided to return to the church.  He broke up with his boyfriend, disavowed having any gay relationship, moved back home and began attending church.  This is the point where our paths crossed and when he joined Evergreen.  We all enthusiastically followed his progress as he began the dating process.  Yeah.  He met a girl.  She was nice, sweet, understanding, everything he was looking for.  He would report on his dates and progress in their relationship.  Then the progress reports got less frequent.  So I asked him what was going on.  Did she not turn out to be as wonderful as he thought she was?  He said no, she is a very sweet and loving person.  It is just that he lost interest.  Fortunately another really nice person was spared the unhappiness that these kinds of marriages frequently end up having.

Eventually my friend met a guy, they got married in Canada, which at the time was one of the few places a gay couple could marry.  That was 11 years ago.  He is still very happy in his marriage.

We could probably fill this entire thread with stories of how different people have dealt with this issue.  Some, like this lesbian couple fit the paradigm that the Mormon church wants people to follow.  Some, like my friends, comes as close as he could in doing what he felt God expected and wanted him to do.  And some have left the church and God completely and never looked back.  We each have just one life.  There is no dress rehearsal.  How we choose to live that life is entirely upon ourselves and the choices we make.  My hope is that everyone makes the kinds of choices that brings them peace and happiness in their relationship with God.  And my hope is that they live their lives as close as they can to the life that Christ himself lead.  Following Christ's words of loving God with all your heart and being kind and loving and charitable to all you mee.  That seems to me to be the best definition of a successful life.

 

You're correct. What you do is your choice and following Christ to the best of our ability is what we should all do. 

Now, as for "teaching divorce", I'm not so sure that is what the Church teaches. It does not recognize same sex marriages and so to join the Church, or, in Courtney's and your friend's case, come back into full fellowship, you cannot be actively living in a same sex relationship. Logically that would mean to divorce a legally bound gay marriage you may be in. So, to disavow any gay relation you may have had, divorce seems to be a logical part of it. 

As for your friend, he is no different than anyone else who may have strong impulses to live a life contrary to the standards of the LDS Church that includes apengaging in pornography, consuming alcohol, not marrying yet engaging in sexual activity with memebers of the opposite sex, etc. Like your friend, we all need to disavow certain vices we may have had to fully follow Christ in this life. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

A gay couple are apostates and can not be members of the church.  I don't think this policy is s surprise for you.  So how would this gay couple be allowed to be members without requiring divorce

There is a difference between teaching divorce and a couple deciding to divorce.  Like I said before, the church specifically teaches against divorce for international polygamists, even though it means they can't join the church.

So, before you claim that the church 'teaches divorce' you need to make sure that's something the church actual teaches.   Is it? 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is a difference between teaching divorce and a couple deciding to divorce.  Like I said before, the church specifically teaches against divorce for international polygamists, even though it means they can't join the church.

So, before you claim that the church 'teaches divorce' you need to make sure that's something the church actual teaches.   Is it? 

I don't see that the church "teaches" divorce here, but they did require it prior to approving the baptism.  Did the missionaries teach about this or did they just tell them that it was a requirement?  Either way, it was something that had to have been discussed with these two women regarding their marriage and the baptism request.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't see that the church "teaches" divorce here, but they did require it prior to approving the baptism.  Did the missionaries teach about this or did they just tell them that it was a requirement?  Either way, it was something that had to have been discussed with these two women regarding their marriage and the baptism request.

Of course.  But like i said, if two people decide that they want to divorce to be baptized, that's different than the church teaching people that they should divorce to be baptized.  As far as I know, the church has never taught that people should divorce for the sake of the gospel, but if they did then it would be great to be able to consider it.

Edited August 24, 2017 by bluebell

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course.  But like i said, if two people decide that they want to divorce to be baptized, that's different than the church teaching people that they should divorce to be baptized.  

Well, in this case (and in any other identical cases), not only were they taught that the "should divorce to be baptized", they were taught that the would have to divorce to be baptized.  So I do see californiaboy's point.  

They had to get a divorce because of a church teaching, believe (or church policy), in order to be baptized.  So, this was either explained or taught to them at some point, correct?

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, in this case (and in any other identical cases), not only were they taught that the "should divorce to be baptized", they were taught that the would have to divorce to be baptized.  So I do see californiaboy's point.  

They had to get a divorce because of a church teaching, believe (or church policy), in order to be baptized.  So, this was either explained or taught to them at some point, correct?

From my perspective, it goes without saying that they were informed that they could not be baptized while still being married.  I don't know if anyone actually told them that though or if they just realized it on their own.

Let me put what i'm saying another way though to see if it makes anything less confusing.  When it comes to polygamy, the church would rather people stay married and not be baptized, than get divorced and be baptized.  They specifically don't teach that people should divorce to be baptized.  They teach actually teach the opposite.  

Do we have anything that shows that the church approaches SSM in either a similar or a different manner?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to polygamy, the church would rather people stay married and not be baptized, than get divorced and be baptized.  They specifically don't teach that people should divorce to be baptized.  They teach actually teach the opposite.  

Do we have anything that shows that the church approaches SSM in either a similar or a different manner?

That would be interesting to know.  There does seem to be a lot of happiness over this couple choosing to divorce so they could be baptized.  So, one has to wonder what they were taught or advised?  Maybe more info is out there on that or more will be revealed later.  

Of course I see what you are saying regarding this too.  I'm just stating that I also see californiaboy's point as well.

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it goes without saying that they were informed that they could not be baptized while still being married.  I don't know if anyone actually told them that though or if they just realized it on their own.

Let me put what i'm saying another way though to see if it makes anything less confusing.  When it comes to polygamy, the church would rather people stay married and not be baptized, than get divorced and be baptized.  They specifically don't teach that people should divorce to be baptized.  They teach actually teach the opposite.  

Do we have anything that shows that the church approaches SSM in either a similar or a different manner?

I'm unfamiliar with the church's teachings that polygamists should stay married and not join the LDS church...  Honest question: where are those teachings found, BlueBell?

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm unfamiliar with the church's teachings that polygamists should stay married and not join the LDS church...  Honest question: where are those teachings found, BlueBell?

I'm going off of what others have relayed in the past (posters such as Cal and Halconero) about how the church handles it when a family can't be baptized without divorcing due to doctrinal or legal issues.

Here's one such thread that has taken place in the past.

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm going off of what others have relayed in the past (posters such as Cal and Halconero) about how the church handles it when a family can't be baptized without divorcing due to doctrinal or legal issues.

Here's one such thread that has taken place in the past.

 

So, do you believe that this couple (who we are discussing) was advised to stay married rather than divorce to be baptized?  I wonder if the leader's stance is the same regarding SSM and polygamous marriages ( need to divorce prior to baptism) just as it is the same regarding the policy of baptizing children involved in those marriages (of SSM and polygamous marriages)?

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe that this couple (who we are discussing) was advised to stay married rather than divorce to be baptized?  I wonder if the leader's stance is the same regarding SSM and polygamous marriages ( need to divorce prior to baptism) just as it is the same regarding the policy of baptizing children involved in those marriages (of SSM and polygamous marriages)?

In a situation like this, where there were no children involved, i wouldn't be surprised if their leaders gave them no advice either way.  Kind of a "this is what is required, you do what you feel God is telling you to do" thing.

If there had been children involved i would guess that the church would strongly counsel against divorce.

Edited August 24, 2017 by bluebell

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In a situation like this, where there were no children involved, i wouldn't be surprised if their leaders gave them no advice either way.  Kind of a "this is what is required, you do what you feel God is telling you to do" thing.

If there had been children involved i would guess that the church would strongly counsel against divorce.

But then those children would not be allowed to be baptized.  

I still have a very difficult time agreeing with that policy when viewed in relation to actual situations.

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm going off of what others have relayed in the past (posters such as Cal and Halconero) about how the church handles it when a family can't be baptized without divorcing due to doctrinal or legal issues.

Here's one such thread that has taken place in the past.

 

Thanks for the link... I read through the discussion, but no links or sources were provided, there... Unfortunately, that thread is now closed for further replies, but I'm wondering if anyone reading this thread has any sources to verify Bluebell's assumptions based on the conversations in the thread she provided...

Can anyone provide support for the idea that the LDS church encourages polygamist families to 'stay married' and 'not divorce' instead of getting baptized in the LDS Church...?

D

[USU78]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Of course.  But like i said, if two people decide that they want to divorce to be baptized, that's different than the church teaching people that they should divorce to be baptized.  As far as I know, the church has never taught that people should divorce for the sake of the gospel, but if they did then it would be great to be able to consider it.

What the Church teaches is Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Confirmation, and Temple Covenants. The method by which one repents, the steps one takes, may include, depending upon the individual, cessation of sexual relationships, formalized or not.

What the Church also teaches is to come out of Babylon, to leave Sodom, and to come to Zion.  To be part of Zion, one has to have a pure heart.  To demonstrate one's pure heart, one has to have faith, repent, be baptized, be confirmed, and enter into Temple Covenants.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What the Church teaches is Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Confirmation, and Temple Covenants. The method by which one repents, the steps one takes, may include, depending upon the individual, cessation of sexual relationships, formalized or not.

What the Church also teaches is to come out of Babylon, to leave Sodom, and to come to Zion.  To be part of Zion, one has to have a pure heart.  To demonstrate one's pure heart, one has to have faith, repent, be baptized, be confirmed, and enter into Temple Covenants.

Then why are polygamous couples advised to not divorce so they can be baptized?  (If that's true....I see more info is being looked for regarding that).

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then why are polygamous couples advised to not divorce so they can be baptized?  (If that's true....I see more info is being looked for regarding that).

Who is advising them that?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Of course.  But like i said, if two people decide that they want to divorce to be baptized, that's different than the church teaching people that they should divorce to be baptized.  As far as I know, the church has never taught that people should divorce for the sake of the gospel, but if they did then it would be great to be able to consider it.

Well  ...  there's this:

Quote

Mark 8:34 ¶ And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him ^adeny himself, and take up his cross, and ^bfollow me.

Quote

Matthew 16:24 ¶ ^aThen said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him ^bdeny himself, and take up his ^ccross, and ^dfollow ^eme.

Quote

Matthew 10:37-39 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.  39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

There appears to be precedent for that kind of sacrifice being asked by the Master.

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who is advising them that?

Bluebell suggested based on a previous thread that it's her understanding that the LDS church advises already-married polygamist families not to get divorced, but to stay together, instead of getting baptized.  She bases her understanding of that idea on a thread that doesn't have any sources.

Can you shed some further information on that..... one way or the other?

Thanks,

D

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Bluebell suggested based on a previous thread that it's her understanding that the LDS church advises already-married polygamist families not to get divorced, but to stay together, instead of getting baptized.  She bases her understanding of that idea on a thread that doesn't have any sources.

Can you shed some further information on that..... one way or the other?

Thanks,

D

No. I was just seeking clarification.

I admit I  have not followed this thread closely.

 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who is advising them that?

I'm wondering that as well.  It appears to have a certain logic to it, that a second marriage in violation of Jacob 2 is a sin to be repented of, and the steps to take in order to repent might include divorcing the second wife.  But who knows?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  there's this:

There appears to be precedent for that kind of sacrifice being asked by the Master.

I'm not talking about whether or not God would condone divorce under certain situations, but whether or not the church ever teaches that members should get divorced so they can be baptized.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who is advising them that?

I was relating what bluebell stated earlier:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69439-lesbian-couple-divorce-to-join-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209748077

And the thread from here that she referenced.

 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not talking about whether or not God would condone divorce under certain situations, but whether or not the church ever teaches that members should get divorced so they can be baptized.

I guess my point is:  divorce is hardly different in kind from leaving family behind if that interferes with discipleship.  Just another species of taking up the cross.

That metaphor of "taking up the cross" in the ears of people who saw others nailed up and tortured to death as a regular "thing" should give us all pause:  it isn't supposed to be easy.  It's supposed to be hard and heartbreaking, but ultimately rewarding because  ...  how can you not?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Bluebell suggested based on a previous thread that it's her understanding that the LDS church advises already-married polygamist families not to get divorced, but to stay together, instead of getting baptized.  She bases her understanding of that idea on a thread that doesn't have any sources.

Can you shed some further information on that..... one way or the other?

Thanks,

D

I found that thesometimesaint also made the same claim in this thread earlier this month, but he didn't not provide a reference for it either.  

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What the Church teaches is Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Confirmation, and Temple Covenants. The method by which one repents, the steps one takes, may include, depending upon the individual, cessation of sexual relationships, formalized or not.

What the Church also teaches is to come out of Babylon, to leave Sodom, and to come to Zion.  To be part of Zion, one has to have a pure heart.  To demonstrate one's pure heart, one has to have faith, repent, be baptized, be confirmed, and enter into Temple Covenants.

And what about any of the children involved in these marriages?