Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If the Church does not allow children under 18 in polygamy and SSM families to be baptized or go through other ordinances to protect the children, to avoid conflict for the child having to choose between viewing their parents' marriage as sinful, etc., then it would be very odd, Imo, for church leadership as a policy to then encourage the parents to be divorced so the parents can be baptized...thus resulting in conflict and pain for the child. 

The policies would contradict each other in general.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"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.""

That makes no difference in the view of a child though, so if protection of the child is paramount, that argument is irrelevant.

So I guess no baptisms under such circumstances.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

So true. I have said that I would not want to repeat my life. I have endured some pain I don't wish to repeat. However, I believe it is part of God's plan for me. I have also experienced great, unknowable joy as a result of living God's plan, and know in the end I will prefer what God planned for me over what I thought I wanted so badly. That makes the trip bitter-sweet at least.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

So much for you honoring a CFR to back up your numerous claims for having "anecdotal evidence".  Sounds like you're the one dealing with "uncertainty" here . :lol:

No worries.  I'll release you from the CFR since you obviously have nothing (not surprising).

If you ever do run across any evidence that the church leaders are advising SSM couples to divorce when children are involved ("anecdotal" or not), please post it, ok? 

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

Perhaps the children and one of the parents.

No, both parents and all the children are most definitely a family.  I personally know of a SS married couple with children who are an incredibly happy family (and very loving and Christlike).  There are all types of families, not just the cookie cuter one that you have in your mind, Scott.  

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So much for you honoring a CFR to back up your numerous claims for having "anecdotal evidence".  Sounds like you're the one dealing with "uncertainty" here . :lol:

No worries.  I'll release you from the CFR since you obviously have nothing (not surprising).

If you ever do run across any evidence that the church leaders are advising SSM couple to divorce when children are involved ("anecdotal" or not), please post it, ok? 

Do you have evidence that the Church baptizes such couples when children are involved without requiring that the couples divorce first?

Link to comment
Just now, ALarson said:

No, both parents and all the children are most definitely a family.  I personally know of a SS married couple with children who are an incredibly happy family (and very loving and Christlike).  There are all types of families, not just the cookie cuter one that you have in your mind, Scott.  

 

I disagree with you.

What a novelty that is!

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have evidence that the Church baptizes such couples when children are involved without requiring that the couples divorce first?

No, but I'm not the one making the claim to having "anecdotal evidence" that the leaders have advised divorce for SSM couples with children.  The "advising" part is what was in question here.  

I firmly believe that our church leaders would never advise a married couple with children to divorce or to break up a family for baptism.  If there was any type of abuse or infidelity involved, that's a different reason to counsel them about divorce and a separate issue entirely.

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
On 8/23/2017 at 11:24 AM, poptart said:

I wonder if there was another motivating factor behind this, there goes the financial benefits they might have enjoyed under their marriage.  I know for me besides no one being willing to talk about Joseph Smiths Masonic ties the ban on gay relationships was the main deal breaker.  Knowing what I would have to give up for something that offered little return on investment was a huge turnoff.  Most people my age have either made horrible choices or were just screwed, everyone I ever knew who married in the states is now divorced, many now messed up mentally.  Not saying gay couples are perfect but geez when I look at whats out there limiting myself to just heterosexual relations is simply not going to happen.  That and being told the benefits of obeying the rules by middle/upper middle class people who have not had to suffer like I have was a bit insulting, give me the wealth and success they have as well as the stable family and good contacts and I'd consider it.

Hope the best for this couple, the missionaries i've known were very nice people, the congregations were very much hit or miss. 

Re: the part I bolded above for reference.

Apparently you were not present for this year's FairMormon Conference. Scott Gordon gave an excellent and enlightening presentation about Mormonism and Freemasonry.

I'm certain the transcript will be online at the FairMormon website if it isn't already. You ought to take a look at it.

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, but I'm not the one making the claim to having "anecdotal evidence" that the leaders have advised divorce for SSM couples with children.  The "advising" part is what was in question here.  

I firmly believe that our church leaders would never advise a married couple with children to divorce or to break up a family for baptism.  If there was any type of abuse or infidelity involved, that's a different reason to counsel them about divorce and a separate issue entirely.

 

Whether or not there is anecdotal evidence is between you and USU78. I'm not a party to that.

I'm just wondering if you think the Church would go ahead and baptize a gay married couple with children without the couple divorcing. Apparently not.

A related question: Do you believe the Church would forbid or discourage a gay couple with children from divorcing so they could be baptized?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether or not there is anecdotal evidence is between you and USU78. I'm not a party to that.

Well, I withdrew the CFR when USU could find no "anecdotal evidence" to post.  I don't know if he'll continue looking and post some later or not, but that's up to him.  As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't back up his claim, so I'm not taking it seriously and released him from needing to supply a reference.

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm just wondering if you think the Church would go ahead and baptize a gay married couple with children without the couple divorcing. Apparently not

I'm not sure why you'd presume to answer for me ("Apparently not") since you've never asked me that question before.  But my answer is I don't know, but I doubt it.  I think the leaders would most likely take each case as it happened and evaluate the situation of all involved.  I know exceptions are made sometimes.   However, If it was the couple's desire to divorce for baptism (as it appears what happened with the women in the OP), and if there were no children involved, I believe the leaders would allow it (a divorce for baptism).  

But until a couple with children makes the same request, we just don't know if the leaders will support a divorce.  I certainly do not believe that the leaders would advise it or approach a married couple to suggest they divorce. Once again, the "advising" part is what was being discussed here.  I believe that the leaders do not want to break up families and would not advise anyone to do so.

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A related question: Do you believe the Church would forbid or discourage a gay couple with children from divorcing so they could be baptized?

I doubt the leaders would "forbid" it, but I do believe they would "discourage" any married couple with children from divorcing for any reason (other than abuse or repeated infidelity where someone is being harmed or injured in any way).

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

I disagree with you.

What a novelty that is!

 

Honestly, coming from a non-traditional family of my own....the disagreement is offensive. My family may not be anyone's ideal....but they sure as heck are still my family.

I hope you are more cautious with your opinions around people whose families no longer/never fit traditional molds. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, coming from a non-traditional family of my own....the disagreement is offensive. My family may not be anyone's ideal....but they sure as heck are still my family.

I hope you are more cautious with your opinions around people whose families no longer/never fit traditional molds. 

 

With luv,

BD

I wasn't speaking about all "non-traditional" families. I was speaking specifically about a same-sex marriage. Is that what you mean when you say you come from "a non-traditional family"?

Edited to add:

Looking back through my recent posts, I'm guessing that my reference to the proclamation on the family is what might have given you the impression that I am declaring wholesale enmity toward all manner of "non-traditional" families. I assure you that is not the case.

 

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

Well, I withdrew the CFR when USU could find no "anecdotal evidence" to post.  I don't know if he'll continue looking and post some later or not, but that's up to him.  As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't back up his claim, so I'm not taking it seriously and released him from needing to supply a reference.

As I said, that's between you and USU78.

 

Quote

I'm not sure why you'd presume to answer for me ("Apparently not") since you've never asked me that question before.  

I said, "Apparently not," because your answer was "No" when I asked a similar question (whether you had evidence that the Church will baptize gay couples with children if they will not divorce first).

Quote

But my answer is I don't know, but I doubt it.  I think the leaders would most likely take each case as it happened and evaluate the situation of all involved.  I know exceptions are made sometimes.   However, If it was the couple's desire to divorce for baptism (as it appears what happened with the women in the OP), and if there were no children involved, I believe the leaders would allow it (a divorce for baptism).

That wasn't my question. The question was whether or not the Church would go ahead and baptize a gay couple with children even if  the couple refused to divorce beforehand.

Quote

But until a couple with children makes the same request, we just don't know if the leaders will support a divorce.  I certainly do not believe that the leaders would advise it or approach a married couple to suggest they divorce. Once again, the "advising" part is what was being discussed here.  I believe that the leaders do not want to break up families and would not advise anyone to do so.

Again, that wasn't the question I asked. I hope the question is clear to you by now.

 

Quote

I doubt the leaders would "forbid" it, but I do believe they would "discourage" any married couple with children from divorcing for any reason (other than abuse or repeated infidelity where someone is being harmed or injured in any way).

They may well feel that repeated violation of the law of chastity by engaging in homosexual relations within a domestic environment is injurious.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 hours ago, USU78 said:

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.

Wow.  I mean I'm all for sustaining the Brethren, but this just doesn't make sense. As I'm trying to understand what you're meaning here, I can only come up with two options. I'm not sure whether the problem is just that you're so used to jumping to the defense based on who you're used to arguing with or whether you really do hold these pervasive, negative opinions of LGBT individuals which aren't actually shared by the leadership. Again, I'm coming at this from a position of an active LGBT member supporting the Church's teaching of marriage. And this type of knee jerk rudeness doesn't help me at all. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Wow.  I mean I'm all for sustaining the Brethren, but this just doesn't make sense. As I'm trying to understand what you're meaning here, I can only come up with two options. I'm not sure whether the problem is just that you're so used to jumping to the defense based on who you're used to arguing with or whether you really do hold these pervasive, negative opinions of LGBT individuals which aren't actually shared by the leadership. Again, I'm coming at this from a position of an active LGBT member supporting the Church's teaching of marriage. And this type of knee jerk rudeness doesn't help me at all. 

Can you clarify what you mean by "knee-jerk rudeness"? I'm not seeing it in USU's post though I've re-read it several times now.

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

I'm just wondering if you think the Church would go ahead and baptize a gay married couple with children without the couple divorcing.

(That is the question you asked....)

Here is my answer:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

...my answer is I don't know, but I doubt it.  I think the leaders would most likely take each case as it happened and evaluate the situation of all involved.  I know exceptions are made sometimes.

And:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But until a couple with children makes the same request, we just don't know if the leaders will support a divorce.  I certainly do not believe that the leaders would advise it or approach a married couple to suggest they divorce. Once again, the "advising" part is what was being discussed here.  I believe that the leaders do not want to break up families and would not advise anyone to do so.

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Did it....?  Do you have a reference for that?

My maternal grandma was born in the Mormon Mexican Colonies in Guadalajara.  Her family histories are filled with stories about the hardship that my faithful polygamist ancestors endured after the Manifesto discontinued polygamy and they were forced to flee form the US territory of Utah to Mexico, where these polygamist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ultimately founded the Mormon-Mexican colonies so that husbands/fathers could peacefully--and FAITHFULLY (as active members of the church living outside of the United States and it's associated territories)--live out the rest of their lives while being married to their wives and caring for the children... Needless to say, the younger generation didn't follow in their parent's marital footsteps, as polygamist marriages were discontinued...

Those are the stories that I've read and heard repeated at countless Family Reunions over the course of 30 years....

I've never heard that the LDS church 'annulled' the polygamist marriages of it's members post-Manifesto--just that the practice of performing plural marriages was being discontinued.

Can you provide some references to back up your facts, Darren?

D

Huh. My understanding was that the Church allowed polygamous marriages to remain in tact in the colonies but in the states they were dissolved. But, as per your challenge, all I could find was the Church no longer allowing new polygamous marriages to form. My bad.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That is the question you asked.

Here's my answer:

And:

 

I'm still not understanding you.

Are you saying you believe there are circumstances under which the Church would baptize a gay couple who had children even though the gay couple fully intended to continue living in a homosexual marriage/relationship after the baptism?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Of course. But didn't the Church dissolve polygamous marriages?

If it did, It was for survival under threat of dissolution by the federal government. I just wanted that point to be clear.

And I'm a bit murky on my history here. I'm not sure the Church formally dissolved any existing plural marriages, though it did announce it's intention to cease performing them.

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm still not understanding you.

Are you saying you believe there are circumstances under which the Church would baptize a gay couple who had children even though the gay couple fully intended to continue living in a homosexual marriage/relationship after the baptism?

I answered that I don't know, but I doubt it. (although exceptions are made by leaders when it comes to rules and policies).

I believe the leaders would advise the married couple to stay married if children were involved and that they should not break up their family for baptism.

But once again, until we know of a case like this, we really cannot be sure how it'll be handled.  

I guess I'm trying to figure out why you're pushing this point so strongly?  Do you believe that a couple in a SSM with children should be advised by church leaders to divorce for baptism?  Do you believe that baptism comes before the need to and importance of keeping a family together?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it did, It was for survival under threat of dissolution by the federal government. I just wanted that point to be clear.

And I'm a bit murky on my history here. I'm not sure the Church formally dissolved any existing plural marriages, though it did announce it's intention to cease performing them.

 

Yeah, after a few minutes of googling that's the point of understanding I've come to as well. 

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