Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yes.  I have anecdotal evidence in confidence that it is done with heterosexual marriages [in the presence of abuse of spouse and/or child].  If we take the position that homosexual marriage is inimical to children's well-being [and it's no stretch to find such a position implicit in the Declaration on the Family], we could make a similar argument to the one you make in the part of your post I don't quote.

How wide-spread the advice is I cannot say.  Were I the Bishop of an abused woman or whose children are being abused by her husband, I certainly would advise her to get the 4377 out of the marriage as quickly as possible and, under the right circumstances, into a shelter with the kids.

Good advice, but it's "7734," not 4377. ;)

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't know, but I suspect yes.  The Church isn't in the business of shielding people from the consequences of their poor choices.  The Church is in the business of teaching people correct principles and assisting them in seeking to ameliorate the consequences of their poor choices.

But then you already knew that.

Don't assume or state what you think I "knew".  I am astounded that you would believe the leaders of the church would ever advise a married couple to get a divorce with children involved, when no abuse (or unrepentant infidelity) was present.  If this ever does take place just because it is a SSM, I will be shocked and so will many others.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The question was already answered:  there's anecdotal evidence it may be happening, but how widespread it is isn't at all clear.

CFR (asking for "anecdotal evidence" that the church has advised anyone in a SSM involving children to get divorced).  I would really be interested in what you have read or heard.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm glad you agree that it's likely and logical that both "G-d" and "His called servants would consider these inevitable effects."  No, I wouldn't take a position that they wouldn't have.

That being said, why would you suggest that "homosexual marriage is such a new thing in the world" that "we cannot know for certain the Church wouldn't so advise as a condition of repentance?

If, as we both presume, "G-d and His called servants" really did "consider those inevitable effects" before announcing the policy almost 2 years ago, why should the "newness" of same-sex marriage have any bearing on whether or not the Church would so advise or not?

If you assume the Church always applies always-applicable cleaver approaches, then you could safely so argue.  If I assume the Church uses a foil and not a cleaver, with maximum freedom left at the local level to craft appropriate remedies, then your argument runs into trouble.

So, no we don't necessarily need to have every possible consequence in every possible fact pattern addressed when announcing a policy  ...  and that isn't at all inconsistent with a thoughtful and charitable and inspired process or outcome to the process in crafting the policy that was adopted.  To assume it wasn't is to judge unrighteously without facts.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR (asking for "anecdotal evidence" that the church has advised anyone in a SSM involving children to get divorced).  I would really be interested in what you have read or heard.

Was it not clear I was arguing from analogy?  The scriptural precedent was clear.  The new wrinkle is the novel and abominable practice.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Don't assume or state what you think I "knew".  I am astounded that you would believe the leaders of the church would ever advise a married couple to get a divorce with children involved, when no abuse (or unrepentant infidelity) was present.  If this ever does take place just because it is a SSM, I will be shocked and so will many others.

Well  ...  prepare for shock, since we now have anecdotal evidence it may have been in the instant example.  I would myself be shocked if it were never advised.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  prepare for shock, since we now have anecdotal evidence it may have been in the instant example.  I would myself be shocked if it were never advised.

And, I asked you for the "anecdotal evidence" (CFR).  Your response above doesn't fulfill the CFR either (When you responded with :  "Was it not clear I was arguing from analogy?  The scriptural precedent was clear.  The new wrinkle is the novel and abominable practice.").  

What "anecdotal evidence" do you have that church leaders are already advising SSM couples to divorce when children are involved?  Please supply the evidence or withdraw that claim.

I highly doubt church leaders are doing this, but I would like to read what you've heard or have read about this already taking place.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The question was already answered:  there's anecdotal evidence it may be happening, but how widespread it is isn't at all clear.

One thing is clear, to me at least:  the Church won't announce any official, always applicable policy until and unless it's darned good and ready.

With all due respect, USU,

No, my question hasn't yet been answered, and it wasn't posed only to you.  I understand YOU have answered with what you know------and that's fine, that's all I'd expect you to answer.

However, statements have been made by others saying that the church teaches that polygamist families are specifically advised NOT to divorce and to NOT get baptized.  There have been two thread references given demonstrating that assumption is 'out there.'

My question--not for you, but for others---is does that assumption/teaching have any basis in actual church policy?  If not, that assumption is false and should be dropped.

I hope that helps clarify my i

Link to comment
4 hours 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? 

You are playing word games.  What does the church teach for a married gay couple to do?  If the  church is not teaching that gay couples should divorce then what is the point in calling gay couples apostates.  It just sounds like name callings if they don't want them to do anything about fixing the issue.  

 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Don't assume or state what you think I "knew".  I am astounded that you would believe the leaders of the church would ever advise a married couple to get a divorce with children involved, when no abuse (or unrepentant infidelity) was present.  If this ever does take place just because it is a SSM, I will be shocked and so will many others.

It's not so very shocking if one realizes the Church does not nor has it ever recognized ecclesiastically the validity of a same-sex "marriage," any more than some other homosexual relationship.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not so very shocking if one realizes the Church does not nor has it ever recognized ecclesiastically the validity of a same-sex "marriage," any more than some other homosexual relationship.

The church leaders recognizes them as legal marriages.  Once children have become involved or adopted and are being raised by these legally wedded couples, I highly doubt that any church leader would advocate for a divorce simply for the reason of baptism.  They do not want to break up families.

Why do you believe they would push for divorce in a SSM if they do not advise this for polygamous marriages (in order to be baptized into the church)?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The church leaders recognizes them as legal marriages.  Once children have become involved or adopted and are they being raised by these legally wed couples, I highly doubt that any church leaders would advocate for a divorce simply for the reason of baptism.  

Why do you believe they would push for divorce in a SSM if they do not advise this for polygamous marriages (in order to be baptized into the church)?

For the reason I have already given. It is not recognized as a marriage in the ecclesiastical sense, legal though it may be (see the quote from President Nelson in my sig lines below). In fact, any homosexual relationship is regarded by the Church as a sin in the eyes of God. I think USU makes a good point in saying the Church would be inconsistent with its own position were it not to advise individuals to end any sinful relationship, whatever it might be, with the caveat I gave earlier, that the individual would still be required to fulfill any obligation he/she had taken on with regard to the care of dependent children.

And no, I have no evidence to offer for this, anecdotal or otherwise. It is only my reasoned surmising.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For the reason I have already given. It is not recognized as a marriage in the ecclesiastical sense, legal though it may be. In fact, any homosexual relationship is regarded by the Church as a sin in the eyes of God. I think USU makes a good point in saying the Church would be inconsistent with its own position were it not to advise individuals to end any sinful relationship, whatever it might be, with the caveat I gave earlier, that the individual would still be required to fulfill any obligation he/she had taken on with regard to the care of dependent children.

But the leaders apparently do not advise a divorce for a polygamous couple in order to be baptized if children are involved.  Just as with SSM, they also do not recognize that marriage in an "ecclesiastical sense" and they believe it is a "sinful relationship" as well (and probably isn't even a legal marriage unless it's the first wife).  So why would a SSM be handled differently?  The baptizing of children within these different 2 types of marriages are handled the same, so why would advising a divorce be handled differently?

IMO, your argument really makes no sense.  But, you are entitled to your opinion and I do understand that's all it is (and respect your right to form it, of course).  I highly doubt there is any "anecdotal evidence" this is taking place as USU claims....but I'll see if he responds to my CFR.

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
On 8/23/2017 at 8:28 AM, Darren10 said:

Here's a story of Courtney and Rachelle. Courtney grew up in the LDS Church and "did everything [she] was supposed to". During her enrollement at BYU, she met Rachelle. Courtney moved to Oregon to be with Rachelle and they got married. Courtney said her soul was torm into pieces as she was gau but knew the Church was true. Courtney found lots of happiness with Rachelle and at a picture session, Courtney's father apologized for previously, by his choice, not ever meeting Rachelle; and that began a healing process. The LDS missionaries showed up to Courtney and Rachelle's door. They both agreed to listen to their message and after feeling the peace brought into their home by the missionaries and by reading the Book of mormon and knowing it was true, Rachelle agreed to join the church they both filed ofr divorce in order for Rachelle to be baptized. 

I think this is a miraculous story. It shows how through the love of Christ anyone can change. It also shows how the most effective way to bring the love of Christ into the lives of ithers is through charitbable service. Not preaching, not condemnation. Though those do have a place in the gospel, it is through personable loving service that Christ's love is most likely felt by others. Jesus knows His own and does not forget them.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Watch-A-Lesbian-Couple-Shares-Why-They-Divorced-to-Join-the-Church-in-Powerful-Video/s/86166?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=social_button

Wow. The emotion of human relationships is so powerful.

"We know that our Heavenly Father's plan for us, is better than our own." This is brave pair of friends. I wish them all the best. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the leaders apparently do not advise a divorce for a polygamous couple in order to be baptized if children are involved.  

I'm not at all certain this is true. Can you document it?

Quote

IMO, your argument really makes no sense.

 

I feel that way about yours because it would be totally inconsistent with the position of the Church on the definition of marriage (ecclesiastical, that is).

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

Wow. The emotion of human relationships is so powerful.

"We know that our Heavenly Father's plan for us, is better than our own." This is brave pair of friends. I wish them all the best. 

They will find with others that "weeping may endure for the night, but joy cometh in the morning."

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not at all certain this is true. Can you document it?

I'm only going from what others have posted here (and from the linked to early thread).  That's why I used the word "apparently".

However, it makes a great deal of sense to me that church leaders are not going to give advise that would harm children or break up families.

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I feel that way about yours because it would be totally inconsistent with the position of the Church on the definition of marriage (ecclesiastical, that is).

Well, all of the reasons you give also apply to polygamous marriages and that's why they seem inconsistent to me.  Do you differentiate between the two (polygamous marriages and SSM) or do you believe they should be handled in the same manner by our leaders when it comes to advising divorce for baptism?  I guess that's the question I was asking you.  (You don't have to answer it, of course....that's up to you.)

They are certainly handled in the same manner regarding the baptism of their children.

I still would be very surprised to hear of any church leaders advising the break up of a family with children involved.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm only going from what others have posted here (and from the linked to early thread).  That's why I used the word "apparently".

However, it makes a great deal of sense to me that church leaders are not going to give advise that would harm children or break up families.

That's why I say the Church would probably hold the individual accountable for having taken on any obligations to care for dependent children, even if the marriage had come to an end. As for breaking up families, a divorce in such a situation would not amount to the breakup of a family,  not in the sense of family as defined in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

Quote

Well, all of the reasons you give also apply to polygamous marriages and that's why they seem inconsistent to me.  Do you differentiate between the two (polygamous and SSM) or believe they should be handled in the same manner by our leaders when it comes to advising divorce for baptism?  I guess that's the question I was asking you. 

I think they should be and are handled in the same manner. I don't concede that Church leaders countenance the continuation in a polygamous "marriage" by candidates for baptism.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's why I say the Church would probably hold the individual accountable for having taken on any obligations to care for dependent children, even if the marriage had come to an end. As for breaking up families, a divorce in such a situation would not amount to the breakup of a family,  not in the sense of family as defined in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

So, you honestly do not consider a married gay couple raising children together to be a family?

Or am I misunderstanding what you mean here?

Link to comment

", that the individual would still be required to fulfill any obligation he/she had taken on with regard to the care of dependent children"

Obligations don't just come in the form of physical needs met or time spent with a child, but in maintaining promised relationships.  Divorce is damaging to children even when all financial and other obligations are met because the child has lost something that they usually highly value, their family.  Parents showing they are committed to each other shows the child they are committed to him or her.  If the parents divorce, many children wonder if they too could see a parent walk away from them because something else becomes more important than them.  Providing a family with two parents if at all possible is one of the obligations parents take on when they bring children into their relationship.  (Since singles are allowed to adopt now as well as single parenthood as a choice not a result of death or divorce becoming socially acceptable, that obligation is not inherent in all families...but if one starts out that way, losing the constant presence of two parents in the home harms a child's sense of security, belonging, self value, etc).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For the reason I have already given. It is not recognized as a marriage in the ecclesiastical sense, legal though it may be (see the quote from President Nelson in my sig lines below). In fact, any homosexual relationship is regarded by the Church as a sin in the eyes of God. I think USU makes a good point in saying the Church would be inconsistent with its own position were it not to advise individuals to end any sinful relationship, whatever it might be, with the caveat I gave earlier, that the individual would still be required to fulfill any obligation he/she had taken on with regard to the care of dependent children.

And no, I have no evidence to offer for this, anecdotal or otherwise. It is only my reasoned surmising.

Agreed.  I've seen nothing in writing, but I haven't really looked.  Attempting google gets me nothing but cascades of "Mormons cause suicides" slanderdreck.

ALarson:  you'll just have to do your own research or deal with uncertainty.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...