You get excommunicated if you resign? "You're fired; no I'm not , I quit first; you're fired; I quit; you're fired; I quit."Originally Posted by LA Ute
You get excommunicated if you resign? "You're fired; no I'm not , I quit first; you're fired; I quit; you're fired; I quit."
Holding a disciplinary council is mandatory, excommunication is not.
We're up to snuff, we never bluff, we're game for any fuss. Or at least we used to be.
A mandatory disciplinary council does not mean there's a mandatory outcome. That's an important distinction.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Being in a same-sex marriage is listed under Apostasy in the revision to the Church Handbook of Instructions and is an offense mandating a Disciplinary Council. So while technically a person could still attend, it would be as an excommunicated member (except in a rare occasion where a married gay couple, who are church members, would go through a DC, but would not be given any kind of church punishment).
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/288...28003-29<br />
Again, nobody would care at all of the church didn't attempt to interfere with the laws of the land. If they simply said, "We don't agree with the laws and intend our members to live a higher law. However, we won't interfere with legislation..." then nobody would care. That approach works well with Word of Wisdom issues.
That was a joke. But the Bundy clan hasn't faced any kind of church discipline for their actions, although that is probably because they are byu fans.
I knew it was a joke. And I would be pleased if they do get charged, are convicted, and get disciplined by the church after their absurd antics.
I would love to see them charged as well. But to be honest I think the church should largely remain silent in terms of church discipline for their actions.
I have an acquaintance in Phoenix who lives in Ammon Bundy's stake and says he is a great guy, but doesn't quite know where all of the powerful vitriol suddenly came from. Different topic for a different time I guess. We all have skeletons in our past, and church should be a hospital for the sick instead of a frontier courthouse with a spiritual gallows in the back.
The correct answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey, I said that. Just not as succinctly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Proof that it isn't only great minds that think alike.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...e-of-love.html
In my "prediction" about how the Church will evolve on the issue of homosexuality, I've been a reader of tea-leaves, an observer. This is incredibly difficult for those who are more affected. Wrenching.
After the Church's policy on children of gay marriages was "revealed", the wife came home from church with red eyes, she'd been crying with one of the mom's on our street who has a couple of gay sons, including the son who recently married - with his spouse bringing along a young daughter from a failed hetero marriage - the son who had met with Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland.
My gut reaction to seeing this sadness was a deja-vu of the reaction I had in the 70s as a teenager on the issue of race: "How can 'God' bring this type of persecution via His church?"
In my long path of coming to grips with my own beliefs, my understanding has changed - this kind of difficult issue is to be expected.
I'm a believer, but my belief is much more along the lines of Thomas Jefferson, the Deist. Only human beings could create a complicated, contradictory set of beliefs and commandments. My own hunch about what The Creator wants us to learn is (probably maddeningly) simple: learn to love one another. Not enough material to fill up a 3 hour block every week.
Last edited by Ma'ake; 01-31-2016 at 09:07 AM.
I am really happy the church is giving guidance like this:
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865...3uEJckLL6dk.01
"We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope," senior church leaders said through a spokesman....
"Every soul is precious to God and to the church and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking," church spokesman Dale Jones said. "Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated. The church has repeatedly stated that those who feel same-sex attraction and yet choose to live the commandments of God can live fulfilling lives as worthy members of the church. We want all to enjoy the blessings and safety offered by embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ and living the principles of His gospel."
Not everyone will like that but I especially liked the part stating that "Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated." We've got to get good at that.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
This is not about LDS theology but it is an articulate expression of concerns that lots of religious thinking people share.
OBERGEFELL AND THE NEW GNOSTICISM
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...new-gnosticism
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
LOL. Keep trying with this gobble-dee-gook word salad stuff: it's becoming more and more clear that gay marriage wasn't ever really a threat (duh). You are fighting a battle lost.
The intellectually lazy approach you and SU take to this subject is really disappointing. You're both very smart and well-educated. It's a shame. On the subject of marriage equality, over the last eight or nine years I have learned a great deal about the views opposing mine, and I have come to respect those views. You don't seem interested in that kind of dialogue. I posted this link to an article that I thought was thoughtful and respectful and interesting. And yet you respond yet again with nothing more than "LOL" followed by ridicule, without engaging at all. Like I say, intellectually lazy. Why do that?
P.S. You're confusing my efforts at thoughtful and civil discussion with my "fighting a battle." Think harder.
Last edited by LA Ute; 07-02-2016 at 02:52 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I probably came off a bit too strong with my comment; it was written hastily after reading your link.
But this subject (gay marriage) really is over. I'm all for opposing viewpoints, but are we still discussing the merits of gay marriage? I think I know the two sides' arguments.
If you want to discuss how the church should handle same sex marriage, or adoption, or even state rights in marriage, have at it. But if you are going to post an article written by an advocacy group (I presume) arguing that Obergefell requires people to believe in gay rights (or something; what is he saying?), well, that's going to elicit an LOL.
It must be. We have moved on to bathroom rights.But this subject (gay marriage) really is over
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
A couple of weeks ago my dad killed a 5ft garden snake in his backyard. He was showing me and my kids pictures of it (before he killed it) and my daughter asked if it was a boy or a girl snake. My dad said he didn't know, and then asked, "How do you tell what sex a snake is?" I said, "You wait to see what bathroom it goes into..." and then we all sat there in silence for a moment.
Times they are a-changin'.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, the debate over whether or not gay marriage will happen is over. That's clear. It's the constitutional law of the land. The article I linked to was in First Things, a well-established high-end journal about religion and public life. So it wasn't from an advocacy organization:
http://www.firstthings.com
The author of the piece is "Sherif Girgis, a recent graduate of Yale Law School, [who] is completing a Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton." Anyway, it was about the question of where we are now, and where we are going as a society after Obergefell.. The piece was written from a religious point of view, and it is clear that the author is a believer, even if not a Mormon, so I thought it belonged in this thread.
No hard feelings. I know people can justifiably be tired of this subject. If you take a look at the piece, however, I think you will see it is a far cry from a "word salad."
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Frankly, I'm unsure as to what end you (and he) are arguing.
Also, the counsel of the church is nothing more than a plea to display basic human decency. Did we really need a statement on that?--I suppose we all need to be reminded to be kind, empathetic, loving, and service-oriented -- but the counsel certainly doesn't break any new ground. I assume the counsel relates to the individual level, and not on an institutional level, as the church as an organization is still mired in an entanglement of mixed messages regarding LGBT individuals.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
Don't we get pleas for basic human decency all the time, being deeply flawed and imperfect human beings? Most of us need to be reminded from time to time. Also, I think what's being encouraged is more than "basic:"
Seems a bit beyond the basics.Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated.
I think you're being pretty hard on the church. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is not an easy tightrope to walk, especially that today, even considering gay sexual behavior a violation of God's commandments puts those who hold that belief on the far outer edges of polite society, to say the least. Note that Mormons and many other religions consider many things a sin, and everything we consider sexual sin is increasingly an marginalized view these days.
Anyway, I think it's great, amid all the cacophony surrounding the gay marriage issue, for the leadership to remind devout Mormons to stay focused on love, compassion and service.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I've always struggled with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." How is that possible? I hate what you do (smoke, drink alcohol), but I love you - who wants to be around someone who hates what they do? How comfortable is that? Even more to the point, I hate what you are (homosexual), but I love you - now that really stretches it. Who can feel comfortable around people who hate what they are? I currently have an LDS church calling where my wife and I serve in a branch that serves a women's halfway house. These women are either transitioning out of prison or getting a chance to avoid going to prison. There are 40-50 women in the facility and about 20 or so come to services each week. Today we drove a woman who has been out of the facility for a couple of months but walks to the facility (about 1 mile) to come to church with us. She is lesbian and her partner is in the facility. They attend church together, hold hands and participate. She was raised LDS but has had a long history of incarceration. She has mentioned several times that she will continue coming to our little branch as long as possible because she knows she is accepted and that she cannot go to other congregations because she knows that many will not.
I think it's more like, "I love you, and I hate what this is doing to you." That's how it works with me. I love myself, but I hate my sins and weaknesses.
I hate what alcohol does to people and to the world in general, but just about everyone I hang out with drinks. This causes me no conflict.
I guess I hate sin in the abstract and in personal cases where it causes me pain, but I'm not thinking about other people's specific sins unless I'm in that rare situation of being able to help them.
I think of Jesus as a pretty good "love the sinner, hate the sin" model.
I agree with Sancho.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
It's crude expression of the idea. I don't use it much for that reason. The idea is to love everyone regardless of their behavior. Not easy for most of us to do, hence the usefulness of constant reminders to keep trying. It's easy to get it wrong when the behavior that's against fundamental church teachings is so closely tied into who the person is. I can't say I've got this one all figured out.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
It's a bullshit statement. Actions speak much louder than hollow words. Hollow words that continue to use a term that the community has repeatedly asked not to be used.
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
--fjm.com
Oh please. It's neither a great nor crappy statement. It's the same statement I've heard my entire life from the church. Some follow it, and some don't. Whoever crafted it probably backs it up with action. None of us would have ever read it if not for LA posting it.
Many years ago some fireside speaker I once heard defined charity as separating behavior from the individual. Therefore, it is not who you are but what you do.
As far as being around people who are doing things of which you disapprove -- and I think approve/disapprove would be more accurate than hate -- you can keep that to yourself and probably should. I have been with people who drink, for example, but they never heard anything from me regarding any disapproval I might have. But then, I've always been a live and let live kind of person.
Last edited by USS Utah; 07-04-2016 at 10:08 AM.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
Not to hijack this thread but we've overused and abused words like hate and bigot. It gets assigned when people disagree.
Reminds me of my brother a number of years back making a comment about a 'grammar nazi' at work. His Jewish employer asked him not to use that word as he felt it lessened the evil the Nazis represented in people's minds. He was worried that young people would simply think a nazi was a strict person.
I feel the same about this stuff. We rush to proclaim hate and bigotry and the words have lost their meaning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm going to be accused of going on and on about intellectual laziness, but here goes. The use of bombshell words like hater, Nazi, bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe and so forth is intellectually lazy. I can see the attraction, however. Using those words reduces complex subjects to a single emotionally-charged epithet. Therefore, it's not necessary actually to address an argument or position substantively -- why should you? It's merely hatred or nazism or bigotry, etc., and doesn't deserve a thoughtful response. So one gets off easy when one uses them. As an added bonus, the other person in one's discussion is put on the defensive, and simultaneously one gets to signal one's own virtue as a non-hater, non-Nazi, non-bigot, etc. I don't have a lot of patience anymore for this style of discussion.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote