Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

And it's General Authorities such as Elder Oaks who let you know what God commands is right, right?

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And that's where the discrepancies or 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.

Joseph didn't even live it in the manner he reveals it was required to be lived in, in section 132 of the D&C.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Many adoptions take place within a SSM.  

That isn't what I am asking. Please read my original post.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

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.

Yes, but no where does He teach that discipleship of parents should negatively impact their children.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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 angel?)

Can this issue be discussed dispassionately without accusations of hatred or condemnation? Probably not, wouldn't  you agree?

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That isn't what I am asking. Please read my original post.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that's what you were asking (and what californiaboy was referring too).

Which adoptions are you speaking of here then?

[JulieM]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Can this issue be discussed dispassionately without accusations of hatred or condemnation? Probably not, wouldn't  you agree?

I think that it's possible.  But I agree that SSM and polygamy are two emotional topics and people have strong feelings about both.  

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but no where does He teach that discipleship of parents should negatively impact their children.

I repeat myself:

 

Quote

 

Matthew 10:37

37 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.

 

 

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

And it's General Authorities such as Elder Oaks who let you know what God commands is right, right?

Elder Oaks has expressed his ignorance on the subject of whether a man who, widowed as he was, is sealed to a second wife will be sealed to them both his wives in the hereafter, but he admits that he made covenants with both.  Everything else he leaves in the hands of G-d.

Your sneering condescension towards this honest and kind-hearted man is noted.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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 angel?)

I think it is easier to understand when, irrespective of our assessment of the moral behavior of the participants, we look at the marriage covenant and the keys to ordain it. It is not the spousal commitment and taking care of children that are problematic in and of themselves, but the secular covenant of ssm that the priesthood keys do not ordain. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical covenant of plural marriage is ordained by the priesthood keys.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that it's possible

Good. Let's all try to make that happen.

 

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that's what you were asking (and what californiaboy was referring too).

Which adoptions are you speaking of here then?

This is what I said....

Quote

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. [EDIT: or adopting children into an existing marriage]. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partner adopt the other''s child? Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I repeat myself:

 

 

Yes, but that does not mean that a parent can cause harm to their children for the gospel.  Children have a right to depend on their parents to meet certain needs.  The church teaches that children have the right to have parents who honor marital vows.  

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

That was beautiful.  I wish more members had that kind of attitude. Actually, I wish the church articulated that attitude better if that truly is the church's outlook on nontraditional families.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that does not mean that a parent can cause harm to their children for the gospel.  Children have a right to depend on their parents to meet certain needs.  The church teaches that children have the right to have parents who honor marital vows.  

And no one's advocating for that.  I think we agree for the most part.  Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case.

When the parent or both parents is living in serious sin, there's no perfect answer.  There are consequences that must be dealt with.  Support and nurturing and security for the child in such a situation is a very important concern, but the risk to that support and nurturing and security was already an issue before repentance became an issue.

Now, I don't believe the Master was advocating for abandoning children in order to be a disciple.  What I do believe, however, and I think I'm on solid ground here, is that our concerns for the "what ifs" of the effects upon our children should never be an impediment to our repentance, even when that repentance requires, as apparently here, divorce.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

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?

Don't attribute any of your vileness towards me.  

While I often find your comments offensive, I often have to remind myself that you do not represent the church, nor do I think your views are the views of most members of the church.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are they adopted children?

Not sure what this means.  They are definitely not the biological children of a gay couple.  So yes, they very well could be adopted children.  Is there a difference on how you view children? Are there instances where the children are not part of a family because of how they entered the family?  I am just trying to understand your position.  As you can see, your statement really causes confusion.  Perhaps you could clarify by what you meant.  I certainly don't want to make assumptions. But I also want to understand the context your comment was meant to give.

Maybe I could put my questions in context better.  This is what you said:

Quote

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. [EDIT: or adopting children into an existing marriage]. How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, to their mother's partner? Should each partner adopt the other''s child? Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

Whether it is a gay couple or a straight couple that had children from a different partner than their current spouse, what would those dealings look like?  

Edited August 25, 2017 by california boy

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Don't attribute any of your vileness towards me.  

While I often find your comments offensive, I often have to remind myself that you do not represent the church, nor do I think your views are the views of most members of the church.

I use hyperbole to show how ridiculous are your positions here.  And how vile they are in my ears.  Have a care while you pitch sliders at other people's windows.

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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

Per your post in response to mine just prior to your post above, no--I'm not aware of any polygamous marriages which were dissolved following the manifesto.

I'm definitely open to evidence otherwise, though, if anyone can provide such.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

That was beautiful.  I wish more members had that kind of attitude. Actually, I wish the church articulated that attitude better if that truly is the church's outlook on nontraditional families.

Thank you. I think if push came to shove, most members would at least hold up that attitude.

As far as the Church goes, I think most speakers on the topic of families (in General Conference for example) and Church-publications recognize the various kinds of "nontraditional" families, though they directly label them as such. They usually refer to the "circumstances" and "challenges" that make them different from the nuclear and extended family (single-parent, divorced, unmarried parents, blended families, previously-sealed, not-sealed, part-member / excommunicated spouse, etc.).

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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

Just saw this response to Scott's post confirming the same, as well. 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And no one's advocating for that.  I think we agree for the most part.  Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case.

When the parent or both parents is living in serious sin, there's no perfect answer.  There are consequences that must be dealt with.  Support and nurturing and security for the child in such a situation is a very important concern, but the risk to that support and nurturing and security was already an issue before repentance became an issue.

Now, I don't believe the Master was advocating for abandoning children in order to be a disciple.  What I do believe, however, and I think I'm on solid ground here, is that our concerns for the "what ifs" of the effects upon our children should never be an impediment to our repentance, even when that repentance requires, as apparently here, divorce.

The church is clear that divorce might be preferable in the cases of abuse or sexual infidelity.  They have never advocated that divorce is preferable if it means a spouse can then be baptized.  

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And no one's advocating for that.  I think we agree for the most part.  Sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case.

I have not seen anything stated by our church leaders being "very clear" that sometimes "divorce is preferable".  Maybe statements that at times divorce is necessary for the safety of one of the spouses or the children.  But, even in cases where there is abuse or infidelity, I know our Bishop has been instructed by his leaders to work with the individual and seek repentance.  Divorce is always the last option as the church leaders do not advocate the breaking up a family (most especially when children are involved).  If the person is not repentant or continues to repeat their behavior, then divorce is allowed, but I wouldn't use the word "preferable" and I haven't seen any church leader use that word either.  

Can you provide a statement by church leaders regarding being "very clear" that sometime "divorce is preferable"?   

I'll look to see what I can find on the topic as well.

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Jacob 2 sez, "Yes!"

Once again, the words recorded as Jacob 2 were recorded prior to subsequent practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and multiple other prophets, apostles, and members of the church.  It's still puzzling to me that you keep using the words of a deceased (and outdated) prophet to comment on current events. 

Additionally, Joseph and many other early LDS members were practicing allegedly God-mandated polygamy in secret prior to it being revealed to the general church membership as a whole... they certainly asserted they weren't violating God's law--in fact, they insisted they were following God's commandment.

Given that individuals receive revelation for themselves and their family, and given the historical reality that Jacob wasn't applicable to Latter-day Saints' 1800-1900 practice of polygamy, I'm not sure how or why you presume that Jacob 2 is evidence that polygamy is the mic-drop answer that God-mandated/authorized polygamy couldn't be practiced today...

Edited August 25, 2017 by Daniel2

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church is clear that divorce might be preferable in the cases of abuse or sexual infidelity.  They have never advocated that divorce is preferable if it means a spouse can then be baptized.  

...  that we know of.  The rumors about polygs, here and abroad, for example.  The possibility of a local priesthood leader, as perhaps in our instant situation, giving that advice.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Once again, the words recorded as Jacob 2 were recorded prior to subsequent practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and multiple other prophets, apostles, and members of the church.  It's still puzzling to me that you keep using the words of a deceased (and outdated) prophet to comment on current events. 

Additionally, Joseph and many other early LDS members were practicing allegedly God-mandated polygamy in secret prior to it being revealed to the general church membership as a whole... they certainly asserted they weren't violating God's law--in fact, they insisted they were following God's commandment.

Given that individuals receive revelation for themselves and their family, and given the historical reality that Jacob wasn't applicable to Latter-day Saints' 1800-1900 practice of polygamy, I'm not sure how or why you presume that Jacob 2 is evidence that polygamy is the mic-drop answer that God-mandated/authorized polygamy couldn't be practiced today...

"[O]therwise they shall hearken unto these things[ ]" is not ambiguous.