Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, on T9 it could also be 4355, right? 

I know what 7734 means (read it upside down) but not 4355. I looked up T9 on Google and found something in Wikipedia about Text on 9 keys. Does it pertain to that somehow?

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So I guess no baptisms under such circumstances.

Correct from what I have been told.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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?  

I'm not trying to push a point so much as trying to understand what you're saying. When you say "I don't know, but I doubt it," it really does sound like you think there may be instances when the Church would baptize a gay couple with children, even if the gay couple has no intention of renouncing their sexual relationship. I'm puzzled that you think this would even be possible under the Church's doctrine and policies.
 

Quote

 

Do you believe that a couple in a SSM with children should be advised by church leaders to divorce for baptism? 

 

I think they should be taught the laws, ordinances, commandments and requirements of God and left to make their own decision.

Quote

Do you believe that baptism come before the need to and importance of keeping a family together?

I think the needs of the innocent children are paramount. How those needs are met would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, I suppose, but I'm not certain it's in their best interest to remain in a domestic environment where the law of chastity is continually violated, either heterosexually or homosexually.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Correct from what I have been told.

OK. Thanks, then.

 

[kllindley]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know what 7734 means (read it upside down) but not 4355. I looked up T9 on Google and found something in Wikipedia about Text on 9 keys. Does it pertain to that somehow?

Edited August 25, 2017 by kllindley
Yes. Those are the numbers you would press on a telephone keypad to get the letters h, e, and l. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

Got it.

[kllindley]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

The rudeness was not necessarily in that specific post. That post was a silly attempt to deny that he had contradicted himself by claiming first that gay marriage is so new that we can't possibly know what to expect the counsel to be, (despite gay marriage being legal in some countries for over a decade) and then asserting that the Brethren foresaw those eventual conflicts. For the record, I believe they did foresee them. But why not just acknowledge that his first comment didn't make sense? Doubling down on contradicting claims seems pretty knee-jerk. 

I see some of the same reactive tone in your comment when you assume that anyone was claiming that the Church would baptize individuals in same sex relationships. You were the first to bring that up. So it seemed that either you were reacting to what you assumed people were arguing or you were trying to create a straw man argument. I didn't think that disingenuous arguing was your style, so I assumed the first. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

It doesn't matter to me if mine is on the doctrinal chopping block or not. It's still non-traditional. The structure, by our current understanding of the Gospel and heaven, simply won't last. I don't see the difference between my smorgasbord of parents and half-siblings and another gay couple with children.  Just stating flippantly, well technically you're not a real family, doesn't make the family bonds and the goodness in them just melt away. And the initial statement rings callous to me about the importance of these bonds on earth now, eternal or not. Especially for the development of the children in these families. Divorce is a means of childhood trauma, whether the parents are gay or straight. It shouldn't be decided on or treated lightly. 

Personally, I hope and pray the church is more focused on the spirit of the law....particularly in the concerns of love, kindness, gentleness, and balancing any potential harm to innocents over any covenantal good. Some of the arguments I'm reading seem way too rigid on focusing on the letter of doctrinal expectations and losing the humans and the families in said pursuit. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It doesn't matter to me if mine is on the doctrinal chopping block or not. It's still non-traditional.

Be that as it may, it is not fair to indict me for allegedly attacking all "non-traditional" families when it was really only gay marriage that I expressed an opinion on.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, it is not fair to indict me for allegedly attacking all "non-traditional" families when it was really only gay marriage that I expressed an opinion on.

 

But what is the difference between a gay couple with children and an unmarried couple with children.  Why is it only the gay couple that receives your distain as not being a real family? Just because they are gay?

It says a lot about how you form your opinions.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

But what is the difference between a gay couple with children and an unmarried couple with children.  Why is it only the gay couple that receives your distain as not being a real family? Just because they are gay?

It says a lot about how you form your opinions.

At the risk of once again being misconstrued, I have a friend in ssm who has a child from a donor. Her partner also has a child, but from another donor. This is not the same a a husband and wife bringing children to marriage from a previous spouse. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partner adopt the other's child? Please don't project any disdain, let's not start up again. I'm perplexed by what is happening around us. Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

At the risk of once again being misconstrued, I have a friend in ssm who has a child from a donor. Her partner also has a child, but from another donor. This is not the same a a husband and wife bringing children to marriage from a previous spouse. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partne adopt the Otha's child? Please don't project any disdain, let's not start up again. I'm perplexed by what is happening around us. Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

 

Let's say that again to try and flush out the issue:

"I have a friend in a heterosexual marriage who has a child from a donor. Her partner also has a child, but from a different donor. This is not the same a a husband and wife bringing children to marriage from a previous spouse. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partne adopt the Otha's child? Were they to be sealed, what would that look like?"

If the two women in your friends ssm had each received their children via intercourse with a man, rather than a donor male, would you be more accepting? If yes, why?

I'm sure your friend, her partner and their children will figure it out within the bounds of a loving family, even if you and God can't come to terms with it.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It doesn't matter to me if mine is on the doctrinal chopping block or not. It's still non-traditional. The structure, by our current understanding of the Gospel and heaven, simply won't last. I don't see the difference between my smorgasbord of parents and half-siblings and another gay couple with children.  Just stating flippantly, well technically you're not a real family, doesn't make the family bonds and the goodness in them just melt away. And the initial statement rings callous to me about the importance of these bonds on earth now, eternal or not. Especially for the development of the children in these families. Divorce is a means of childhood trauma, whether the parents are gay or straight. It shouldn't be decided on or treated lightly. 

Personally, I hope and pray the church is more focused on the spirit of the law....particularly in the concerns of love, kindness, gentleness, and balancing any potential harm to innocents over any covenantal good. Some of the arguments I'm reading seem way too rigid on focusing on the letter of doctrinal expectations and losing the humans and the families in said pursuit. 

 

With luv,

BD

So the Church should just carry on and act AS IF marriage and family arrangements that seriously violate the laws of God are good and morally acceptable even though in some vague spiritual sense they're not? What you seem to be advocating here is the normalization and acceptance of some seriously sinful behaviors except in some inconsequential theoretical sense that has no meaning nor application in the real world. It amounts to a course of action that would almost unavoidably lead the members to eventually embrace these sinful behaviors as good things because there would be no discernible negative consequences for those who engage in such sins. But if there is a downside to arrangements that violate the eternal laws governing marriage and family, the responsibility for any negative consequences are squarely on the shoulders of the adults who choose to engage in these sinful behaviors, not on the Church. Why should the Church be held responsible if after repeated solemn warnings to not engage in sinful behaviors there are some who choose to commit those sins anyway?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

At the risk of once again being misconstrued, I have a friend in ssm who has a child from a donor. Her partner also has a child, but from another donor. This is not the same a a husband and wife bringing children to marriage from a previous spouse. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partne adopt the Otha's child? Please don't project any disdain, let's not start up again. I'm perplexed by what is happening around us. Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

 

How do you ever deal with adopted children?

[Marginal Gains]

58 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the Church should just carry on and act AS IF marriage and family arrangements that seriously violate the laws of God are good and morally acceptable even though in some vague spiritual sense they're not? What you seem to be advocating here is the normalization and acceptance of some seriously sinful behaviors except in some inconsequential theoretical sense that has no meaning nor application in the real world. It amounts to a course of action that would almost unavoidably lead the members to eventually embrace these sinful behaviors as good things because there would be no discernible negative consequences for those who engage in such sins. But if there is a downside to arrangements that violate the eternal laws governing marriage and family, the responsibility for any negative consequences are squarely on the shoulders of the adults who choose to engage in these sinful behaviors, not on the Church. Why should the Church be held responsible if after repeated solemn warnings to not engage in sinful behaviors there are some who choose to commit those sins anyway?

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

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the Church should just carry on and act AS IF marriage and family arrangements that seriously violate the laws of God are good and morally acceptable even though in some vague spiritual sense they're not? What you seem to be advocating here is the normalization and acceptance of some seriously sinful behaviors except in some inconsequential theoretical sense that has no meaning nor application in the real world. It amounts to a course of action that would almost unavoidably lead the members to eventually embrace these sinful behaviors as good things because there would be no discernible negative consequences for those who engage in such sins. But if there is a downside to arrangements that violate the eternal laws governing marriage and family, the responsibility for any negative consequences are squarely on the shoulders of the adults who choose to engage in these sinful behaviors, not on the Church. Why should the Church be held responsible if after repeated solemn warnings to not engage in sinful behaviors there are some who choose to commit those sins anyway?

Do you realize that this exact same statement could  have been made about interracial couples by just as faithful member of the Church as yourself?  Think about that for a moment when you look at the points you use to rationalize your beliefs.

Some vague spiritual sense"  

To those that are in that family, there is nothing vague about how at peace they are with the  Spirit.

"that would almost unavoidably lead the members to eventually embrace these sinful behaviors as good things"

In fact, your statement proved to be true.  Members do fully embrace interracial marriages.

"no discernible negative consequences for those who engage in such sins"

As it turns out, there are no negative consequences for interracial couples to marry and have families.

Why should the Church be held responsible if after repeated solemn warnings to not engage in sinful behaviors there are some who choose to commit those sins anyway?

While the church has never apologized for how it treated interracial families, I think that a lot of people still hold them accountable for their deplorable behavior. The church's answer?  "We were working on limited light and knowledge."  As if that is some kind of excuse for the church policies.

Just as during this period of church history, people could see the good in those family relationships.  They saw how children were growing and thriving in those interracial families.  Some gave pause to the way the church was treating those families.  And for some, it was not just some "vague spiritual sense".  This issue divided the church back then.  I don't know if you were around during that time, but many on this board were.

Just something to think about.

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

Jacob 2 sez, "Yes!"

Edited August 25, 2017 by USU78

[california boy]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It doesn't matter to me if mine is on the doctrinal chopping block or not. It's still non-traditional. The structure, by our current understanding of the Gospel and heaven, simply won't last. I don't see the difference between my smorgasbord of parents and half-siblings and another gay couple with children.  Just stating flippantly, well technically you're not a real family, doesn't make the family bonds and the goodness in them just melt away. And the initial statement rings callous to me about the importance of these bonds on earth now, eternal or not. Especially for the development of the children in these families. Divorce is a means of childhood trauma, whether the parents are gay or straight. It shouldn't be decided on or treated lightly. 

Personally, I hope and pray the church is more focused on the spirit of the law....particularly in the concerns of love, kindness, gentleness, and balancing any potential harm to innocents over any covenantal good. Some of the arguments I'm reading seem way too rigid on focusing on the letter of doctrinal expectations and losing the humans and the families in said pursuit. 

 

With luv,

BD

BD, I wish I could give you more than a rep point.  I wish  I could give you a big hug.  I learned a valuable lesson during the over a decade where my family would have nothing to do with me.  I will forever be grateful for the gay couple who invited me to their Thanksgiving dinner when no one in my "traditional family" would.  I wasn't the only orphan at that first Thanksgiving dinner alone.  And actually to my surprise, I wasn't the only former Mormon sitting at that table.  The dinner was amazing.  No I mean really amazing.  Afterwards I was talking to one of the other orphans and I said something like, "that was amazing, but where was the jello."  This woman standing near us whips her head around and says "Are you Mormon?"  Yeah she lost her "traditional family" as well because she happened to be a lesbian.

The lesson I learned is that day and over the years since, a family can be a lot of things.  Some we come to because of birth.  Some come to us because of very Christ-like souls that feel a humanity that others ignore.  We all became great friends and spend more than just that first holiday together.  Only those with narrow minds believe the definition of a family is also so narrow.  

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Jacob 2 sez, "Yes!"

Where was Jacob 2 when Joseph Smith was marrying all those women?  It sounds optional to me.  

[USU78]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

What Alarson forgets is the subject on which anecdotal evidence exists and on which it may exist: wives advised to divorce abusive husbands is the former; the instant is the latter.

[USU78]

Just now, california boy said:

Where was Jacob 2 when Joseph Smith was marrying all those women?  It sounds optional to me.  

Don't pretend not to know the difference between being commanded specifically to do "X" and being generally prohibited from doing "X."

[USU78]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

The Savior never addressed the rights of children or the requirements for parents in the NT.  

NT people were plenty dysfunctional, but even they couldn't imagine embracing sin and calling it normative. The Master's injunction is clear: discipleship is and is supposed to be difficult.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Where was Jacob 2 when Joseph Smith was marrying all those women?  It sounds optional to me.  

You are perfectly free to believe whatever you like. You are perfectly free to wrest plain language or invent things whole cloth.

You are not free to impute evil intentions into somebody else's prophets and not get push back from believers.

[USU78]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Me neither. Scratchin' my pate here.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What Alarson forgets is the subject on which anecdotal evidence exists and on which it may exist: wives advised to divorce abusive husbands is the former; the instant is the latter.

I was referring to your "anecdotal evidence" claim here regarding SSM couples:

I posted:

"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."

You responded to my post with:

"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."

Either way, you could not provide any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise), so I've released you from the CFR and moved on.

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson