Same sex marriage considered apostasy

[Anonymous]

This deeply saddens me in many ways. It’s more hardline toward the individuals cohabiting or married and is unfair to the children (no matter their age). This is going to occupy my thoughts for a while.

[Anonymous]

I tell you who’s not going to stand for this is my kids’ generation. I guess the Church is okay with losing millenials. Or, will we see an unsigned Gospel Topics essay forty years from now asserting that this was only ever policy and not doctrine?

I’m writing a letter to my bishop now. Even though my bishop has no control over these policies; may or may not pass my objections up the food chain, depending on whether he personally agress with me; and because I am a woman, has the power to excommunicate me.

Even my husband, who didn’t meet an openly gay person until he was 25 years old, agrees that the policies towards children are unnecessarily punintive. He supports me registering my objection with the bishop. I haven’t told him that I plan to stop paying tithing until this policy is reversed and publicly denounced, but that’s between me and the Lord.

ETA:: While I’m angry, let me just add, where does the LDS Church get off defining marriage? Let’s keep in mind that…

– the gospel topics essay DEFENDED Joseph Smith marrying a fourteen-year-old girl behind his wife’s back

– Brugham Young said that you shouldn’t ever love one of your wives so much that you couldn’t stab her through the heart at a moment’s notice

– a black man and woman could not be sealed together in the holy covenant of eternal marriage until a year before I was born

– I may have to share my husband with 1,000 other wives in the Celestial Kingdom but I won’t know until I get there

But sure, waiting until marriage to have sex, marrying someone the same gender as you, and then remaining sexually faithful to that person for your entire life is BEYOND THE PALE.

[Anonymous]

This is simply unbelievable – I don’t even have the words for it. Why does a certain group of people perpetually have a target on their backs from Church Headquarters perspective?! I like, DJ, am deeply saddened and troubled. I don’t even know what to do about it other than the stewing I did throughout part of the wee hours of the morning. 😡 :thumbdown:

[Anonymous]

In case you are interested, this is what I wrote to my bishop.

Quote:

Bishop –

I am writing to let you know that I strenuously object to new Church policies regarding the labeling as apostates of members in same-sex marriages, and the withholding of blessings from children of such unions. (While these policies were most likely anonymously leaked from a handbook that is not available to the general Church membership, the rumor was confirmed by a Church spokesperson and reported on by the Deseret News.) Such policies are divisive, harmful, and particularly in the case of children, un-Christlike.

I don’t expect you to respond to this letter, and I understand that as a lay leader you have no control over Church policy. However, we are told that the correct means of registering objection with the actions of Salt Lake is to address our concerns with our local leaders, and I am doing just that.

I appreciate all that you do as our bishop. The [redacted] Ward is lucky to have you.

Sincerely,

I understand that it’s not my bishop’s fault. I try not to make the mistake of yelling at the minimum wage McDonalds employee about why there’s so much fat in the french fries, KWIM? I’m still playing leadership roulette and gambling that my bishop won’t excommunicate me (which he can do, since I am a woman) or take away my temple recommend because I sympathize with so-called ‘apostates’ (which wouldn’t be that big of a deal since I’ve vowed not to return to the temple until women are no longer required to veil their faces). What I’m saying is that the bishop I have now SEEMS like less of a hard-liner than some of them, but I guess I’ll find out!

[Anonymous]

Is this the same policy that has been in place for children of polygamous unions?

Several key differences in that situation, but some similarities.

[Anonymous]

How many bishops and SPs do you think will let sleeping dogs lie? In our ward, for example, there are quite a few long term inactives (some I have never met in over 25 years in the ward) some of whom have undoubtedly entered into cohabitive relationships. We actually have a fairly recent convert (less than a year) who entered into such a relationship after being baptized and she and her boyfriend (I don’t know what to call him) attend fairly regularly – without apparent repercussions (if there is discipline it is low level and very private). The bishop and SP don’t go after the less actives who “live in sin” with people of the opposite gender, they just let them be. I can see my own bishop (who has has children in the situation) just looking the other way, and probably my SP doing the same. Do you think my leaders are in a minority? Will yours just let sleeping dogs lie?

(My ward has 250 members, sacrament meeting attendance of 90, 36% activity which is average for the stake.)

[Anonymous]

I thought sleeping on this one would help. It didn’t. In fact it so dominated my thoughts that I had a dream about it last night (and I hardly ever have dreams). In the dream I attended some local meeting to discuss the new policies, towards the end the leaders retired to a different room to discuss things. I was insistent on staying so I could voice my disapproval of their decision when they came back but everyone was leaving the room and DW was begging me to leave as well. I woke up with me still waiting for them to come back from their deliberations. :crazy:

The only faithful explanation that I can come up with is that the top leaders of the church truly believe that homosexuality is in direct opposition to the plan. I suppose that much is obvious. I’m guessing they worry that legalizing same sex marriage sends a dangerous signal to the world that it is “acceptable” so they come out with a hard-line approach to remove any doubt.

I’m shocked. Shocked. I’m still too stunned to know whether I’m angry or sad.

Where did this come from? Whose brainchild was this policy? One day we have Christofferson saying it’s okay for members to support same sex marriage, the next day we have a policy that children must disavow same sex marriage to be baptized. One day we have Oaks reaffirming that we should respect and adhere to the law of the land, the next day we label the people that are adhering to the law of the land as apostates. If this is the old ship Zion she sure is being driven by the wind and tossed by the waves of the sea.

This policy hurts. This policy is divisive. This policy is not Christian.

[Anonymous]

WHY can’t we take the same policy on SSM as we do on plural marriages/sealings to dead spouses, etc.? We trust God to sort it all out in the next life when it comes to heterosexual couples (like a wife who was sealed to one spouse and widowed, then remarried, has kids with husband #2, for example. Whose kids are they? Husband #1 or #2? We are fine with letting God be responsible for making that decision.) but we don’t trust God to do the same with people who through no fault of their own are attracted to their same gender.

Is it because gay people are somehow irreprably broken? No, the Church teaches that it’s not a sin to be gay. But everything ABOUT being gay IS.

Frankly, I hope that there is a huge amount of public backlash about this. The Church deserves every ounce of bad press it gets. That’s what it took to reverse the priesthood ban, that’s what it’s going to take here.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

How many bishops and SPs do you think will let sleeping dogs lie? In our ward, for example, there are quite a few long term inactives (some I have never met in over 25 years in the ward) some of whom have undoubtedly entered into cohabitive relationships. We actually have a fairly recent convert (less than a year) who entered into such a relationship after being baptized and she and her boyfriend (I don’t know what to call him) attend fairly regularly – without apparent repercussions (if there is discipline it is low level and very private). The bishop and SP don’t go after the less actives who “live in sin” with people of the opposite gender, they just let them be. I can see my own bishop (who has has children in the situation) just looking the other way, and probably my SP doing the same. Do you think my leaders are in a minority? Will yours just let sleeping dogs lie?

(My ward has 250 members, sacrament meeting attendance of 90, 36% activity which is average for the stake.)

The language in the handbook is very specific (emphasis theirs):

Quote:

When A Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.

Mandatory.

For fornication, adultery, etc.:

Quote:

When A Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

Formal church discipline may be necessary for any member who commits a serious transgression. As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, …

So the well meaning BP has wiggle room for homosexual relations and sexual cohabitation but once people of the same gender marry the well meaning BP’s hands are effectively tied. “Must” take disciplinary action. Disciplinary council is “mandatory.”

Edit: I will point out that holding a disciplinary council is mandatory but the outcome of that council is not. It’s a small ray of light but I think there’s a strong implication as to which direction the council should go.

[Anonymous]

What if he pretends he doesn’t know (or really doesn’t know), Nibbler? Fact is he may not. The only way we would know anything about any of the long term inactives is if something appears on the news. I don’t think we have any married same sex couples in our ward, and I’m not sure if we have any living together – but that’s just it, I don’t know and most of us don’t because we have no contact with them. We do have some gay inactive members, I don’t know what they do and don’t do in their private lives (and personally don’t care). I think our bishop could safely let sleeping dogs lie, just as he does with cohabiting heterosexual couples, as long as nobody does anything stupid like come and confess to him.

Of course that does not address issue of children, but frankly what loving parents would even ask for their children to be blessed or baptized in a church that is going to discriminate against them for something they have no control over?

I agree, Nibbler, it’s unchristian. I do not believe Christ would do this and things like this make me question any GA who says “The Lord is at the helm.”

[Anonymous]

What about the couple that wants to attend church and not hide the fact that they are married? The BP can feign ignorance to protect them but all it takes is one member of the ward that wants to make an issue of it.

[Anonymous]

I noticed the wording that explains the exception for a child of a gay parent to be baptized or go on a mission said if they live with a parent who has or currently lives with a gay partner they first have to move out. So the church doesn’t believe the atonement applies to gay people.

I am so mad at this policy. It’s illogical and discriminatory. There is no scriptural basis for gay sex to be considered the worst sin. Children of adulterers can be baptized even though that’s in the 10 commandments.

I wasn’t aware of the existing ruling on children from poligamous families, I disagree with that too.

[Anonymous]

Temple-married, heterosexual men who beat their wives are not apostates. Men who marry other men are. Okay.

If I attend the same-sex marriage of a family member who is gay, am I supporting apostates? Should I lose my temple recommend over that? We are supposed to be free to support gay marriage on social media; are we allowed to support it in real life when it involves a beloved family member?

Who defines apostasy, anyway? This is all policy and not doctrine, so it can change at a moment’s notice, yes?

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

You make some good points and I should have worded it differently. I shouldn’t have said “business” I should have said something else. Never-the-less, I see this horrible reality:…The Church doesn’t want to change its doctrine and doesn’t want members that will challenge it working from the inside…Cutting out youth that have gay parents = cutting out dissenting voices on the issue of gay marriage…This would be “strengthening” its membership by weeding out “problematic” members, and the Church apparently doesn’t care about attracting the kind of members that would disagree with this policy. Basically…so what about the bad publicity, they don’t want those people, anyway…I’ve also seen the faithful perspective that allowing children in the Church while still a minor would be cruel because they’d have to grow up being in a church that teaches they aren’t in a valid family, Thus, “make them wait until they’re 18” to make that choice, so to speak (I don’t agree with this)…Additionally it kind of cuts the Church out of dealing with some of these issues and puts it on the members to sort out. Let the lesbian mother wrestle with the horror of whether or not to come out and live with her girlfriend, for fear that now her whole family will suffer. Her kids can’t get baptized, her son can’t serve a mission until he moves out and renounces her (she wouldn’t want to put him in that position), among other horrible, awful things. There are now clear guidelines about this kind of stuff.

But the problem for the Church is that it isn’t only going to be people directly affected by this policy or bleeding-heart liberals that already sympathize with gays and lesbians that stuggle with this; even many conservative TBMs that have already accepted the idea that homosexuality is a sin will really start to question the leaders’ judgment and inspiration over this not so much because of calling same-sex marriage apostasy but because of the part about treating people differently because of who who their parents are. For example, there is the article of faith about being punished for our own sins and not Adam’s transgression. That’s what I don’t understand about this, that rather than let sleeping dogs lie they would want to stir up this controversy. It almost looks like they saw that they were losing the battle of popular opinions but rather than take no for an answer they threw a tantrum.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I thought sleeping on this one would help. It didn’t.

And soon I’ll be off to a sort of disorienting fun house, in the form of a primary program rehearsal, with everyone singing about the Savior’s love, and, “I’ll walk with you, I’ll talk with you, that’s how I’ll show my love for you.” Is there really room for all of us in the church, the people who see great irony in this, and the ones who sing just as fervently, “follow the prophet, he knows the way”? Will the kids singing these sense the same conflict between them that I do? If they do, when? How will they handle it? What will it be like to grow up in a church whose rejection of gay people may be eclipsing a reputation as good, salt of the earth folks in the public mind?

[Author]

Posts