Leaderboard

It is quite simple really.... He is violating the Law of Chastity (Sexual Relations are to be between a Man and Woman legally and lawfully married) This is something he would have been taught growing up so it should not come as any surprise... The fact that he goes off on other things he claims are "mistakes" made by the Church also point to the simple fact that he does not also share the belief that that Christ is leading the Church. He is apostate plain and simple. And that is entirely by his choice and actions

I think that, subject to the laws of the land, any organisation has the right to set its own rules and decide who it will admit as members and whom it will disallow. I was disappointed recently when the blue foot club kicked me out when they found out that my feet are actually green. I think this is an example of blatant discrimination against people with green feet and shows a complete lack of acceptance, respect and love for green footed people. Maybe this rule is based on outdated stereotypes of green footed people, but they are the rules, and the rules of the blue foot club clearly state that only people with blue feet can be members. It may be that at some future time, the rules of the club will be changed to allow green footed people to be members, but that's not what the rules say at the moment. Until that time, I'll do my best to continue to follow those aspects of the club that I enjoyed and found to be appealing even though I no longer belong to it. And I'll do my best to to accept that my right to live as I want is just as valid as the clubs' right to do what it wants and not become angry or bitter about the club.

There's a lot there, and I'm not really up for a point-by-point refutation. I would observe the following: 1. Not everything done in the name of "love" is morally right, and 2. In Mormon theology, life is seen as a training ground for a future existence in which a person might--if he has, through Christ's atonement, developed the necessary Godlike virtues--have absolute power to create (and destroy) life. A major purpose for this life is to prove that we can be trusted with that sort of power (so that you don't wind up with the sort of chaos imagined by the ancient Greeks, who described gods that created people out of mere boredom, started wars on a whim, and routinely tortured/raped their creations for the mere sport of it). To use the power to copulate (or to kill) for mere self-gratification in a means contrary to the way God intended, is therefore a very grave sin; and those who encourage such behaviors are in a very real sense jeopardizing the eternal reward of those naive enough to listen to them. That's why the Church reserves the right to excommunicate in these sorts of cases--so that unrepentant sinners can't use their church membership as a means to recruit others into sin.

Your friends are ignorant and/or dishonest. The Church leadership is not looking to discipline ("kick out") a man because he loves another man. They are considering discipline him ("kicking him out") because he is having sex with another man. His "marriage", though perhaps legal, is a sham in the eyes of God. Thus says God through his prophet, and thus teaches God's kingdom. You need not accept that teaching, of course; but then, why are you whining about getting "kicked out" of an organization whose foundational principles you don't even agree with? Lunacy and hypocrisy. In addition, I question the wisdom of posting what amounts to an anti-Mormon screed on this web site. No offense intended.

Let me also point out that the semantic distinction is vitally important, and not merely for accuracy's sake. A common tactic, perhaps unconsciously done at times but still not honest, is to introduce a peculiar, idiosyncratic meaning for a word, then make an accusation or statement using that idiosyncratic meaning but willingly allowing it to be generalized to the more common meaning. How often have we heard "love" used as a euphemism for sexual gratification, then been lectured at how "unloving" Christians or Mormons are because they fight against Love (meaning homosex or other fornication)? I believe this to be an example of corrupt communications such as Paul specified in the epistle to the Ephesians. When this is done unintentionally, the offender should simply be corrected; if s/he is honest and humble, s/he will immediately admit the point. But often, the offender does not admit the point, betraying either a dishonest intent or a prideful attitude (which is much the same thing). In any case, the "semantic distinction" should be maintained and not pooh-poohed away as if it were unimportant.

Are you asking for ideas on how to split your ward? Well the answer would be you standard missionary/reactivation/keep activation answers...

Very nice .... Thanks

Hi Ophelia, it's been a a little over a week now and I'm just wondering how things ended up?

I'm sure it is difficult for him to contemplate losing his membership in the Church. The main thought I have is that, after dealing with the grief of losing his membership, I hope he finds some way to still be involved with the Church. I hope he finds ways to continue to grow his relationship with the Savior. No matter what trials and challenges we face, we all need to rely on the Savior for our growth in this life and whatever "reward" we will get in the next life. I am reminded of this thread here (http://lds.net/forums/topic/54539-i-just-read-this-blog-on-ssa-learned-a-few-things/ ) and the experience of Tom Christofferson (http://allarizona.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/What-Manner-ALL-2014.pdf ). After wrestling with himself and his sexuality and entering a monogamous homosexual relationship, he decided he wanted the Church in his life. Even though he cannot be baptized because of his current relationship status, he and his bishop still work together to find ways for him to participate in church services. I hope that those around him, including the Bishop and others on the disciplinary council will truly treat this as a "court of love", recognizing that the only thing being decided is his membership status. I hope that they will continue reach out to him and his husband and try to help them stay as close to the Church as they will allow.

I think the above elaborate quote is an introduction, a precursor to the actual ordinance. Similar to a bishop perhaps expounding on the event. Or perhaps like a temple wedding when the officiator may give advice or expound on the significance of eternal families, but then the actual ordinance is very simple. So, in short, it's a preamble to the ordniance.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. I posted this because I was curious as to the thoughts of others on how they would respond to my non-LDS friend. In context of the subject matter being discussed, the article was necessary to post.

Hello and welcome to the forums! I'd love to hear more about your progress as you continue meeting with the missionaries and consider baptism. I joined when I was eight and three decades later I still consider it the best decision I've ever made :) I know of many people whose spouses are either inactive or non-members, and in some relationships it creates friction but in others there are no issues. Religious differences can add pressure to a marriage similar to money problems, parenting approaches, in-laws, etc. but you would by no means be a "second class citizen" as a member who is married to a non-member. Trust your heart, pray for guidance and do what you feel is best for you. Either way, you are welcome here.

Do him and yourself a favor and call it off.....your setting yourself up for a disaster. getting married is no magical pill that will resolve your issues. They will still be there