Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It is not gay marriage that is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc.  It is being gay.  Period.  

Not being. Only fully embracing the 21st century Western gay identity, by rejecting the teachings of Latter-Day Prophets. Not being. 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

According to core Mormon doctrine, a gay person can not have a family.  There is no place for them in the Celestial Kingdom unless they are straight.  There is no eternal marriage or eternal offspring for someone who is gay whether in this life or the next.

Really? That is not a fair representation of doctrine. 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The hope that is given to a gay person is that they will eventually become straight.  Yeah, we have heard that promise before haven't we.

Well, I'm halfway there! 😉 

If Jesus can change me that much in the last 10 years, I don't have any doubts that He can finish the job in eternity. 

[cacheman]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you read both articles that I linked to? The data that you've referenced above was that 50 per cent of male homosexual couples engage in sex with other men 'with their partner's knowledge' (emphasis original) -- i.e., the relationships are consensually 'open'. This does not include any actual 'unfaithfulness'. If you read both articles in their entirety (plus the research they link to), you will find that non-monogamy is one of the defining characteristics of same-sex 'marriage'.

I get that.  But I'm not seeing how you've determined that non-monogamy is a defining characteristic of same-sex marriage, but not opposite-sex marriage....which also sees some level of non-monogamy (consensual or otherwise). Is it the high percentage?  At what percentage does it become a defining characteristic of the whole?  How does the data relate specifically to same-sex marriage, when it only looks at male same-sex couples (of which less than 20% were married).  It seems that you are eager to over-extrapolate the study. 

As far as 'unfaithfulness' goes. ...I simply used that word because it was the term Tacenda used in the post you responded to. 

 

 

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, cacheman said:

It seems that you are eager to over-extrapolate the study. 

Did you read both articles and their internal links?

[cacheman]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you read both articles and their internal links?

I read both articles and the study on gay couples. I'm primarily interested in what inferences can be drawn from the research, and that study was the only one linked in the articles. 

The study looked at gay male couples from the San Fransisco bay area in 2010.  Exactly how much can be inferred about same-sex marriage from a single-location study on gay male couples? Why is non-monogamy a defining characteristic of same-sex marriage, but not of opposite-sex marriage?  

 

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the problem is, a gay person can enter into a gay marriage and still not reject the Church any more than a person who breaks any commandment is not necessarily rejecting the church.  

The real question is why is the name calling even necessary.  Do we need to officially label those that break the WoW as rejectors of divine revelation?  Do we officially label those that break the law of chastity as harlots?  Maybe we should come up with a whole list of labels to start calling members when they do something against church teachings.  How about calling anyone who tells a lie as a viper?  Do you have more suggestions for official labels you would like to use?

This is the part where gay members feel unwelcome and ostracized by the church.

Name calling? Apostate doesn't and need be any sort of negative label. It just means someone has chosen to separate themselves from the Church. 

And it isn't just breaking the Law of Chastity. It's publicly flouting it. I think if a gay member is not wanting to reject the Church, but feels the need to enter a same-sex relationship, fine. Don't get married. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Because that worked out so well for the Black community and Mormon community back in the day.

Well, I thought the temple was for exaltation, where men and women need to procreate spirits. Just thought that was impossible for the same sex to do that, so why the need? 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What do you think the long term consequences are for a gay couple that chooses to marry rather than just be in a relationship?  Does anyone know?  Do you think church leaders know?

It is a sincere question.  Me and my partner have chosen not to marry.  Will that make any difference in the eternities?  

If it's a sincere question, I think it will potentially make a difference. I doubt you will currently find much comfort or satisfaction in that difference now or ever. But I do believe not marrying will make repentance easier whether that's later in this life or the next. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If it's a sincere question, I think it will potentially make a difference. I doubt you will currently find much comfort or satisfaction in that difference now or ever. But I do believe not marrying will make repentance easier whether that's later in this life or the next. 

Thanks for your answer.  Can you clarify more what you think?  Why do you think repentance will be harder if a gay couple marries rather than just lives together?  Especially since marriage is only when on this earth.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Name calling? Apostate doesn't and need be any sort of negative label. It just means someone has chosen to separate themselves from the Church. 

And it isn't just breaking the Law of Chastity. It's publicly flouting it. I think if a gay member is not wanting to reject the Church, but feels the need to enter a same-sex relationship, fine. Don't get married. 

Then why use the term at all?  And why not the same labeling for other sins that are "publicly flaunted"?  I personally felt that the church was making a clear statement that gay couples would not be welcome in the Mormon Church.  I am certainly not alone.  Certainly you are aware of many members feeling such labeling as inflamatory and divisive.  I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who think calling someone an apostate was not a negative label.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Not being. Only fully embracing the 21st century Western gay identity, by rejecting the teachings of Latter-Day Prophets. Not being. 

Really? That is not a fair representation of doctrine. 

Well, I'm halfway there! 😉 

If Jesus can change me that much in the last 10 years, I don't have any doubts that He can finish the job in eternity. 

You know Klindey, I am happy that you have found a place in the gospel for you that works.  But sometimes I think you are not so willing to be understanding to those of us who do not find a place in the gospel.  

What is a fair representation of the doctrine that you have to be married to a woman in the Celestial Kingdom even if you are gay?  You assume that others gay men can live in a marriage with a woman because you have been able to.  But what about someone like me?  I certainly gave it a valiant effort.  Married for over 25 years.  It never worked for me. I only stayed in the marriage because I felt like I made a commitment to raise my children and didn't think it was fair to them to be a weekend dad.  And it certainly was not my wife's fault.  She is a wonderful person.  We are still very close.  Does that sound like someone who made no effort?  Honestly your viewpoint seems to only be one sided sometimes.  Maybe you could explain more what you meant by my statement not being a fair representation of doctrine.  Where does a gay person fit into the Plan of Salvation?  Because is all I have heard is that they must change somehow and become straight.

Oddly enough, it is by not rejecting what the teachings of Latter-Day Prophets have said on this issue that has caused me to come to that understanding.  Rejecting their teachings would have me conclude that I could still be married to my partner in the next life.

Edited July 4, 2018 by california boy

[Josh Khinder]

On 11/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, hope_for_things said:

I was very excited to learn about this the other day.  I’m an Imagine Dragons fan and  even bigger Dan Reynolds fan for all he’s doing, what a great person.  

I don’t agree that his days as a member are numbered.  Unless his disagreements with church leaders start sounding over the top disrespectful, I don’t think they would want the negative publicity they would get through an excommunication.  So he’d have to resign, and so far I haven’t heard him say anything that makes me believe he wants to formally resign.  

Can’t wait to watch the documentary and I love Hans Zimmer too, how cool of a story!  

http://youtu.be/iHpRlztBUd8

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

What do you think the long term consequences are for a gay couple that chooses to marry rather than just be in a relationship?  

That depends, I think, on the paradigm in which the question is asked.

In an LDS paradigm, I think one significant long-term consequence is that the individuals are distancing themselves even further from the Gospel.  They are making the journey toward (or back to) the Restored Gospel more difficult.  They are creating for themselves a profound "Sophie's Choice"-type dilemma.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Does anyone know?  Do you think church leaders know?

I think the leaders of the Church know.  I think this was a big factor in the 2015 policy changes.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is a sincere question.  Me and my partner have chosen not to marry.  Will that make any difference in the eternities?  

As to the relationship?  I don't think so.  The relationship, whether solemnized as a marriage or not, will be like all other "unsealed" relationships.  See D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

As to whether there is "any difference" as to the individuals involved, I'll leave such matters to them to discern for themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/30/2017 at 9:50 PM, bluebell said:

I was disappointed that he described the church’s position as teaching that “being gay is a sin.”

He lost me there. 

He lost me there, too.  He also lost me when he characterized the Church's position as "'shaming' ... gay and lesbian kids," when he publicly declared that "the church's 'platitudes [about there being a place in the Church for gay and lesbian kids] are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex," and when he publicly accused the Church of "going to war on the LGBT community" and of driving children to suicide.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to work my way back.  

I think he's something of a head-in-the-clouds kind of a guy.  A shoot-ready-aim kind of person.  He appears to privilege his emotions over the Scriptures and the General Authorities.  I suspect he hasn't really given the Church's position and doctrines much thought or effort to understand (as evidenced, in part, by his characterizing the Church's teaching as "being gay is a sin").  He has friends who are gay, his friends are offended/upset that the Church teaches that homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage are wrong, ergo he left straddling a divide between his friends and his community of faith.  Q.E.D.

But for all that, he seems to genuinely want to build bridges.  I contrast him with folks like Jeremy Runnells, and Kate Kelly, and a few others, whose rhetoric and conduct toward the Church never seemed to be genuine and conciliatory and accommodating, but instead came across and accusatory and usurpatory and shut-up-and-do-what-I-say-esque.  He seems to be working mostly to be an ambassador for gay folks to the Mormons, but I think he is also attempting, to some extent, to be an ambassador for the Mormons to gay folks.  I think I detect that in his interviews.  And if that's the case, then good for him.

In the end, notwithstanding his occasional misstep/mischaracterization, I think he is generally operating in good faith.  I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That depends, I think, on the paradigm in which the question is asked.

In an LDS paradigm, I think one significant long-term consequence is that the individuals are distancing themselves even further from the Gospel.  They are making the journey toward (or back to) the Restored Gospel more difficult.  They are creating for themselves a profound "Sophie's Choice"-type dilemma.  

I think the leaders of the Church know.  I think this was a big factor in the 2015 policy changes.

As to the relationship?  I don't think so.  The relationship, whether solemnized as a marriage or not, will be like all other "unsealed" relationships.  See D&C 132:7:

As to whether there is "any difference" as to the individuals involved, I'll leave such matters to them to discern for themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I made this statement, 

Quote

What do you think the long term consequences are for a gay couple that chooses to marry rather than just be in a relationship?  Does anyone know?  Do you think church leaders know?

I was only. referring to the eternity, not in this life.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I made this statement, 

I was only. referring to the eternity, not in this life.  

Yes, I understood that. I think my response still holds.

I am not sure we can fully bifurcate what we do in this life from what happens in the next. As Maximus so aptly put it, "What we do in life ... echoes in eternity."

Thanks,

Smac

[Jeanne]

If I could be exact in the definition of happiness...I would wonder...and forgive me..but I would wonder..who is the happiest..California Boy or Klindley. 

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If I could be exact in the definition of happiness...I would wonder...and forgive me..but I would wonder..who is the happiest..California Boy or Klindley. 

Well even I can't answer that question.  But I can tell you that my life totally changed, all for the better when I finally came out.  I am not saying that it has all been easy, but it certainly has been worth it.  It changed my life so completely to a trajectory that has brought me so much joy and happiness.  And honestly even my spirituality and relationship with God has changed for the positive.  Everyone has their own path that brings them to the Savior.  And yes, I know this is impossible for Mormons to understand.  Their paradigm doesn't fit at all the choices I have made,  

But I think I am a very different person than Klindley.  I think we started out with very different situations.  I honestly hope he is every bit as happy as I am.

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If I could be exact in the definition of happiness...I would wonder...and forgive me..but I would wonder..who is the happiest..California Boy or Klindley. 

Some degree of subjectivity is apt to creep into the definition, no matter how much care might be taken to avoid it.  I believe Alma when he wrote that "Wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10), but all of us are apt to define "wickedness" and "happiness" differently.  California Boy's paradigm (and hence, his definition of both of those words) is apt to differ from mine and from KLindley's.  And even though I don't share California Boy's paradigm, according to his paradigm and his definition, in some ways, I envy him, because he has achieved a degree of happiness (again, according to his paradigm) that I doubt I will in this life.

More power to him and to his partner, and to them collectively.  I cannot and would not demand that they accept the same paradigm I do.  (And I understand why they don't.)

In some ways, our situations are mirror-images of one another.  I'm reminded of the episode of M*A*S*H in which the married (and reportedly happily so) Captain B.J. Hunnicutt falls for the very fetching war correspondent Aggie O'Shea.  He tells her that he can't go from, "How do you do?" to "I love you" because of the war, and that she lives for today because, for her, there may not be a tomorrow, while he lives for tomorrow because, for him, there's no now.  The thought of his wife and child waiting for him to come home to them is the only thing that gives him a tiny bit of control over an otherwise-chaotic situation.

I'm like Captain Hunnicutt: I live for tomorrow because, in some ways, my "now" isn't very appealing (the seeming collective indifference of the female of the species toward me, in its entirety, being but one of my issues [and, honestly, despite its importance, it's pretty far down the list]).  Living for tomorrow is the only thing that gives me a tiny bit of control over an otherwise-chaotic situation.  He's like Aggie O'Shea: He lives for now because for him, the "tomorrow" promised by the Latter-day Saint paradigm isn't appealing.

As much as I might not agree with him, I can't necessarily blame him for feeling the way he does.   

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well even I can't answer that question.  But I can tell you that my life totally changed, all for the better when I finally came out.  I am not saying that it has all been easy, but it certainly has been worth it.  It changed my life so completely to a trajectory that has brought me so much joy and happiness.  And honestly even my spirituality and relationship with God has changed for the positive.  Everyone has their own path that brings them to the Savior.  And yes, I know this is impossible for Mormons to understand.  Their paradigm doesn't fit at all the choices I have made,  

But I think I am a very different person than Klindley.  I think we started out with very different situations.  I honestly hope he is every bit as happy as I am.

Love to hear this..and I am with you on the happiness for Klindley.  So all this means is that the twists and turns/obstacles in our lives are not the obstacales themselves..but how we deal them.  Thank you.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Some degree of subjectivity is apt to creep into the definition, no matter how much care might be taken to avoid it.  I believe Alma when he wrote that "Wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10), but all of us are apt to define "wickedness" and "happiness" differently.  California Boy's paradigm (and hence, his definition of both of those words) is apt to differ from mine and from KLindley's.  And even though I don't share California Boy's paradigm, according to his paradigm and his definition, in some ways, I envy him, because he has achieved a degree of happiness (again, according to his paradigm) that I doubt I will in this life.

More power to him and to his partner, and to them collectively.  I cannot and would not demand that they accept the same paradigm I do.  (And I understand why they don't.)

In some ways, our situations are mirror-images of one another.  I'm reminded of the episode of M*A*S*H in which the married (and reportedly happily so) Captain B.J. Hunnicutt falls for the very fetching war correspondent Aggie O'Shea.  He tells her that he can't go from, "How do you do?" to "I love you" because of the war, and that she lives for today because, for her, there may not be a tomorrow, while he lives for tomorrow because, for him, there's no now.  The thought of his wife and child waiting for himinin your open to come home to them is the only thing that gives him a tiny bit of control over an otherwise-chaotic situation.

I'm like Captain Hunnicutt: I live for tomorrow because, in some ways, my "now" isn't very appealing (the seeming collective indifference of the female of the species toward me, in its entirety, being but one of my issues [and, honestly, despite its importance, it's pretty far down the list]).  Living for tomorrow is the only thing that gives me a tiny bit of control over an otherwise-chaotic situation.  He's like Aggie O'Shea: He lives for now because for him, the "tomorrow" promised by the Latter-day Saint paradigm isn't appealing.

As much as I might not agree with him, I can't necessarily blame him for feeling the way he does.   

There is a lot of love in your honesty,...thank you for you response.  It is respectful..and I feel like you have grown a lot  in your dealing with certain issues.  I admire you in your recognition of others and their trials and feelings.  Thank you.

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your answer.  Can you clarify more what you think?  Why do you think repentance will be harder if a gay couple marries rather than just lives together?  Especially since marriage is only when on this earth.

I think the marriage aspect changes their soul. I believe any sexual intimacy has an actual effect which alters the spirit. 

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then why use the term at all?  And why not the same labeling for other sins that are "publicly flaunted"?  I personally felt that the church was making a clear statement that gay couples would not be welcome in the Mormon Church.  I am certainly not alone.  Certainly you are aware of many members feeling such labeling as inflamatory and divisive.  I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who think calling someone an apostate was not a negative label.

Not flaunted. Flouted. I understand that many people do see it as negative. I'm suggesting that they need not.

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

You know Klindey, I am happy that you have found a place in the gospel for you that works.  But sometimes I think you are not so willing to be understanding to those of us who do not find a place in the gospel.  

  Honestly your viewpoint seems to only be one sided sometimes.  

This surprises me. Can you help me by pointing out what specifically I say that suggests I'm not willing to understand? I would have thought that when I repeatedly say that I understand and respect and support LGBT individuals who feel that the best choice for them is outside the Church--I would think that would communicate a willingness to understand. Or the fact that I  believe Heavenly Father actually does inspire some LGBT individuals to leave the Church. I'm honestly confused how that is one-sided.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

What is a fair representation of the doctrine that you have to be married to a woman in the Celestial Kingdom even if you are gay?  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

 Maybe you could explain more what you meant by my statement not being a fair representation of doctrine.  Where does a gay person fit into the Plan of Salvation?  Because is all I have heard is that they must change somehow and become straight.

I think a fair representation of LDS doctrine would start with the understanding that according to that doctrine, homosexuality is strictly a mortal experience. I don't see the post mortal change to be a new state, but a return to our previous nature.

So I don't believe that in the celestial kingdom anyone is gay. That is the position of the Church. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe that. But it is what the Church teaches. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You assume that others gay men can live in a marriage with a woman because you have been able to.  But what about someone like me?  I certainly gave it a valiant effort.  Married for over 25 years.  It never worked for me. I only stayed in the marriage because I felt like I made a commitment to raise my children and didn't think it was fair to them to be a weekend dad.  And it certainly was not my wife's fault.  She is a wonderful person.  We are still very close.  Does that sound like someone who made no effort?  

I don't assume that other gay men can be happy in a mixed-orientation marriage in this life. Several leaders have made it clear that many aren't able to. 

I really would like to know what I've said that even remotely leads you to believe that I think you "made no effort." Seriously, please help me understand which comments make you think that. 

[kllindley]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well even I can't answer that question.  But I can tell you that my life totally changed, all for the better when I finally came out.  I am not saying that it has all been easy, but it certainly has been worth it.  It changed my life so completely to a trajectory that has brought me so much joy and happiness.  And honestly even my spirituality and relationship with God has changed for the positive.  Everyone has their own path that brings them to the Savior.  And yes, I know this is impossible for Mormons to understand.  Their paradigm doesn't fit at all the choices I have made,  

But I think I am a very different person than Klindley.  I think we started out with very different situations.  I honestly hope he is every bit as happy as I am.

I really am sincere that I can understand and truly believe that your path did bring you closer to God and Christ. And I fully believe you are happy. 

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Love to hear this..and I am with you on the happiness for Klindley.  So all this means is that the twists and turns/obstacles in our lives are not the obstacales themselves..but how we deal them.  Thank you.

I whole heatedly agree that the obstacles themselves are less important than how we respond. 

I wouldn't begin to speak to what other people experience, or question their happiness. I only know that I am happier with my wife and children than I was when I was pursuing same-sex relationships. 

[Rain]

 

On 7/2/2018 at 9:15 AM, Tacenda said:

bold mine

When the church labels anyone an apostate, that is a red flag to me that it isn't using Christ's love as a goal, but ostracising people out of an organization.

 

On 7/3/2018 at 8:33 AM, california boy said:

If this is the church's definition of what an apostate is, then why doesn't the church label someone who is living with a partner without being married an apostate.  Or for that matter, anyone who is not living the commandments and has left the church or no longer attends? How about someone who refuses to give up drinking or smoking?  

Apostate is a very charged word.  And words have meaning.  The church can call anyone it wants an apostate.  But let's not fool ourselves.  To someone who is gay it definitely feels like the church is indeed ostracizing gay married couples out of an organization.  Do you honestly believe that a gay married couple would feel welcome to attend church while being called apostates?  

Would. you feel welcome going to a church labeled as an apostate?  Because the message to me is quite clear.  I am not welcome.  Nor do I think there is a place for me and my partner in the church.  And yes, I think that is definitely the message the church wanted to send.   

When I read Tacenda's statement I started thinking about this and then I read what you wrote here.  What I was thinking was, "I wonder if some people think that the word has more power than the church does."  

So I looked up the word:

Quote

a·pos·tate

əˈpäˌstāt,əˈpästət/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

   synonyms:

   dissenter, defector, deserter, traitor, backslider, turncoat; More

adjective

 

1. 1.

   abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

Now if you go strictly by definition then it isn't a charged word.  In fact I was surprised y how benign it sounded. But then you look at the synonyms and it becomes very charged.  

I have mixed feelings on that.  I really like looking up words in a thesaurus.  I've always liked creative writing in some form or another.  What I have found is that often "synonyms" are not very synonymous.  In fact they can be quite far apart.  For that reason I often don't really think of using synonyms in place of my original word. With "apostate" all of the synonyms for "apostate" are negative enough that none of really fit the stated definition. 

So if I go just by definition then labeling someone entering into a gay marriage as apostate just seems to go along with the definition - one legally chooses marriage to someone of the same sex over church teachings.  While one may not make vows in a wedding most of the world recognizes that marriage is a step beyond living together.  If it wasn't then people who see no moral reason not to live together would not see a need to marry (unless of course they are thinking of insurance, inheritance etc issues). 

And when I think of President Oaks and his legal mind then it makes sense to me that by labeling someone apostate it wouldn't be done in a charged way. However, there are many who would pay more attention to the synonyms included with the definition than the definition itself.  And then there is no surprise at all that some feel the word is charged.   With your relationships with your family that you have talked about then it is no wonder that you view it this way.  

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

When I read Tacenda's statement I started thinking about this and then I read what you wrote here.  What I was thinking was, "I wonder if some people think that the word has more power than the church does."  

So I looked up the word:

Now if you go strictly by definition then it isn't a charged word.  In fact I was surprised y how benign it sounded. But then you look at the synonyms and it becomes very charged.  

I have mixed feelings on that.  I really like looking up words in a thesaurus.  I've always liked creative writing in some form or another.  What I have found is that often "synonyms" are not very synonymous.  In fact they can be quite far apart.  For that reason I often don't really think of using synonyms in place of my original word. With "apostate" all of the synonyms for "apostate" are negative enough that none of really fit the stated definition. 

So if I go just by definition then labeling someone entering into a gay marriage as apostate just seems to go along with the definition - one legally chooses marriage to someone of the same sex over church teachings.  While one may not make vows in a wedding most of the world recognizes that marriage is a step beyond living together.  If it wasn't then people who see no moral reason not to live together would not see a need to marry (unless of course they are thinking of insurance, inheritance etc issues). 

And when I think of President Oaks and his legal mind then it makes sense to me that by labeling someone apostate it wouldn't be done in a charged way. However, there are many who would pay more attention to the synonyms included with the definition than the definition itself.  And then there is no surprise at all that some feel the word is charged.   With your relationships with your family that you have talked about then it is no wonder that you view it this way.  

 

That word has had very negative connotations since the early days of the church. I’m surprised anyone thinks it’s merely a formal definition of turning away from faith or principle. I call myself an apostate precisely because its connotations are so excessive. I like the irony. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by jkwilliams