Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[BlueDreams]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

At the end of the day, we are all one family of God. We are all brothers and sisters. We all take turns mothering and fathering those in need of succor. And at times we all fail in our responsibility in being such. I'm glad you found family that day

 

With luv,

BD   

[ALarson]

10 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. 

Well stated (much better than what I expressed trying to say the same thing ), thanks BD.

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson

[BlueDreams]

7 hours 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.

I didn't indict you for such. I knew you were talking about gay marriage and gay families. The distinction doesn't matter to me. I know how hurtful that can be to have your family not be seen as legitimate because the boundaries are not blood or legally bound in some way. I know the pain of singing families can be together forever....and think "not mine." I know the discomfort of reading the proclamation to the world and having difficulty seeing my peoples or myself in it. And I don't think it's okay that just because someone else's family construct is different that they should be treated with any less dignity than one that may have clear eternal covenants tied to them and general privileges afforded them in a church setting. I believe in the doctrine of the church. I believe that there is definite wisdom in it because of my experiences. But that does not mean that my family becomes less of that here and now just because the afterlife may have us constructed a little differently. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

Yes, unless specifically commanded to do so by God. The general, default commandment is not to do it. See Jacob 2. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I didn't indict you for such. I knew you were talking about gay marriage and gay families. The distinction doesn't matter to me. I know how hurtful that can be to have your family not be seen as legitimate because the boundaries are not blood or legally bound in some way. I know the pain of singing families can be together forever....and think "not mine." I know the discomfort of reading the proclamation to the world and having difficulty seeing my peoples or myself in it. And I don't think it's okay that just because someone else's family construct is different that they should be treated with any less dignity than one that may have clear eternal covenants tied to them and general privileges afforded them in a church setting. I believe in the doctrine of the church. I believe that there is definite wisdom in it because of my experiences. But that does not mean that my family becomes less of that here and now just because the afterlife may have us constructed a little differently. 

 

With luv,

BD

I still think you are setting up a straw man. But I don't desire to continue the conversation further. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours 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?

That is not at all what I'm advocating for. I'm not asking for the church to teach differently even though when I was younger it hurt. I'm asking for charity to those different from us. To treat these families as you would like yours to be treated. To seek for the good in their lives and build on that.....the most basic of missionary expectations. There is a wide spaces between rigid condemning and wholesale condoning. I would hope we could live in that. Respect to me is not inconsequential.  

 

With luv,

bD

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still think you are setting up a straw man. But I don't desire to continue the conversation further. 

You are welcome to leave it. But this isn't a straw man. You haven't shown how my family wouldn't also be considered a legitimate family as it stands. Or why its okay to de-legitimize a gay family as opposed to mine. What's the real distinction? Mine does not fit church standards. They can't all be sealed directly to me. One is sealed to another family I have no real part in. About half of us were created by breaking the law of chastity including yours truly. Creating that family lead to church discipline more than once. We do not fit the Proclamation, except in the warning section. The only difference is that none of my immediate family is gay (that we know of) and married to a same sex-partner.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2017 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

A bit testy since it was you that brought up the scripture in reply to the question of polygamy.  Sounds kind of hypercritical to me. to attribute evil intentions on a situation that YOU brought up.  

Edited August 25, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

You are welcome to leave it. But this isn't a straw man. You haven't shown how my family wouldn't also be considered a legitimate family as it stands. Or why its okay to de-legitimize a gay family as opposed to mine. What's the real distinction? Mine does not fit church standards. They can't all be sealed directly to me. One is sealed to another family I have no real part in. About half of us were created by breaking the law of chastity including yours truly. Creating that family lead to church discipline more than once. We do not fit the Proclamation, except in the warning section. The only difference is that none of my immediate family is gay (that we know of) and married to a same sex-partner.  

 

With luv,

BD

I try never to get personal in these discussions. From what I've observed, it never turns out well. 

Im going to try really hard to have this be my last post in this conversation. If that means placing you "on ignore" so I'm not tempted to continue it, so be it. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I try never to get personal in these discussions. From what I've observed, it never turns out well. 

And yet, you were the one who made it personal when you stated that a couple in a SSM raising children together are not a family.  Hopefully with reading BD's comments (and other's), you can now see how wrong and offensive that is.

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson

[BlueDreams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I try never to get personal in these discussions. From what I've observed, it never turns out well. 

Im going to try really hard to have this be my last post in this conversation. 

You're right. BTW it is always personal when you are negating/questioning someone's family. Whether or not that is directly mine doesn't matter. 

I'll stop now.

 

With luv,

BD  

[CV75]

I think the Lord recognizes the good wherever it is found, including families of all stripes. I think as His representative, the Church finds common ground wherever she can, such as supporting the aims of LoveLoud and welcoming all to attend church meetings and activities regardless of their family structure, however broadly “family” might be defined. The saints ideally adopt the same attitude.

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” The Church respects that, and will assist parents to care for their children, spiritually and temporally. The members follow suit as we develop our friendships. She has doctrines and policies that support that aim.

Adults have complex lives and fall short of the ideal both personally and as families, imposing complexity upon the children, but whomever follows the light of Christ will seek grace and seek to extend grace no matter their circumstances or sins, and even when that light is but narrowly applied.

Her doctrines and her membership and sealing policies are not necessarily an area of common agreement, but they are not meant to demean anyone or their family. No deviation from the ideal (intentional or not) is cause to refuse anyone God’s charity and grace.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, unless specifically commanded to do so by God. The general, default commandment is not to do it. See Jacob 2. 

Dallin H. Oaks has entered into a plural marriage arrangement.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The only difference is that none of my immediate family is gay (that we know of) and married to a same sex-partner.

I see no difference in how the families in the two constructs should be treated. The love the couples and family members share is real, and to the extent the emotion and its manifestation reflect the attributes of Christ, I believe their love will endure. The followers of Christ who are not in that family will recognize this principle no matter what the family looks like, and will not undermine any good that comes from that love. “For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy…”

When “treatment” takes on elements of ecclesiastical ministry and administration, adults are treated differently than children according to their accountability. Families and the children within those families are ministered to through the head of the home, a “gatekeeper” so to speak, in line with D&C 83:4, and so in that sense I think varying circumstances call for varying treatments.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

Oopsie. I left out the subjunctive on that one. Should have read "may have anecdotal" or "appear to have anecdotal." Suddenly your posts make sense.

Hey, you want an editor job? I don't appear to be capable of self edit.

[USU78]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

A bit testy since it was you that brought up the scripture in reply to the question of polygamy.  Sounds kind of hypercritical to me. to attribute evil intentions on a situation that YOU brought up.  

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?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Never mind.

Edited August 25, 2017 by USU78

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Dallin H. Oaks has entered into a plural marriage arrangement.

Irrelevant. The commandment pertains to mortality.. 

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Irrelevant. The commandment pertains to mortality.. 

Unless you have some breaking news, Dallin H Oaks is very much still in mortality.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Unless you have some breaking news, Dallin H Oaks is very much still in mortality.

I meant the commandment is not to have more than one wife in mortality. 

Do I really need to spell that out for you, or are you just being argumentative?

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I meant the commandment is not to have more than one wife in mortality. 

Do I really need to spell that out for you, or are you just being argumentative?

I'm showing the inconsistency. Oaks is sealed to two women. He and his living wife have accepted and entered into an eternal plural marriage arrangement, despite it being against God's laws.

I understand you want to make the distinction between living and dead, but that really is just semantics.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

How do you ever deal with adopted children?

Are they adopted children?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I'm showing the inconsistency. Oaks is sealed to two women. He and his living wife have accepted and entered into an eternal plural marriage arrangement, despite it being against God's laws.

I understand you want to make the distinction between living and dead, but that really is just semantics.

It's not semantics. It is an essential distinction. 

Whatever God commands is right. If, for His own purposes, He decrees that plural marriage be instituted among His people for a temporary period, and if He later decrees that period has come to an end, it was right in both instances. 

God is not bound by what you say is or is not consistent or what you say is "just semantics."

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Are they adopted children?

Many adoptions take place within a SSM.  

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not semantics. It is an essential distinction. 

Whatever God commands is right.

And that's where there are discrepancies or where beliefs differ.  I don't believe Joseph (and others) were commanded to live polygamy.  You do.

I honestly cannot believe that even if he was commanded, he lived it in a manner which God would have approved.

That you and others condemn gay couples who commit to each other and form a family, but then are just fine with a married man deceiving his wife and marrying at least 30 other women (as young as 14 years old and including other men's wives) is pretty difficult for many to understand.

(Don't want to take this off topic, so maybe someone should open a new thread if they want to pursue the polygamy angle?)

Edited August 25, 2017 by JulieM