Backroads

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

Why do we need to keep these ideas exclusive? John, who's gospel is filled with thematic elements (Judas leaves the supper to betray his Master, "and it was night" - cue thunder, lightning) sees the blood, water, and spirit elements of birth and rebirth in the Atonement. He clearly sees it as carrying an allegorical message. Elder Talmage, relying on the testimony of physicians, sees it as a literal elements witnessed at His death that testify to the manner of his death (a broken heart - which leads others to apply their own allegorical teachings to it).
 
I'm not going to tell you to exclusively sit in either the allegory or literal camp here. I don't think you necessarily have to for other Bible stories.

There are no "marrying keys" to be removed from the Bishops. Each Bishop/Branch President has to register with his local civilian authority so that he has the legal (law of the land) authority to perform marriages. 
 
When my husband and I got married, the Branch President married us in a civilian ceremony. He could do so by the authority given to him by the State of Oregon,and it was given the seal of the Lincoln County Clerk.
 
Later, when we had followed the conditions required by the LDS church, we were then sealed to each other at the Mesa Temple. No matter where you live, what country - the civilian laws do NOT recognize our Temple Marriages/Sealings to spouses. 
 
The gay couples if they are LDS, know that their union is not approved by the church or by God. They know that no Bishop/Branch President is ever going to marry them. If they are actively intimate, they will not be issued a Temple Recommend, thus it is a moot subject regarding the temple marriage/sealing. As for the new law in Denmark, as was pointed out in an earlier post - refers NOT to TCOJCOLdS.

The Church also has the option to stop all marriages in the temples and just do sealings...
 
So no I don't see it happening

Urstadt,
 
 
I understand that this is difficult for you, it has been difficult for me as well.  The last thing anyone wants this to turn into a witch hunt.   No one want Kelly (or anyone else) to quit attending church, quit praying, quit scripture reading, or to loose her testimony.  We all want to heal, we all want to be embraced by the Lord.  What has happened this weekend is a tragedy, even if necessary.  
 
I've thought/prayed about this a lot.  It has caused a serious prolonged study for me on what "Priesthood" is.  I am sympathetic to many of Kelly's points.  But when one has questions, the proper course of action is to pray & knock, not to submit things to the New York Times.  We must follow the Lord's model of behavior, not the American political one.  
 
-Jane

Ok, well, TFP reiterated what one of my stake presidents said once "there are many people in this stake who are walking around thinking they have the gift of the Holy Ghost, but they don't."
 
So, let me speak from experience having been excommunicated for over 9 years and rebaptised last year, the Gift of the Holy Ghost may be taken away, but one still has the Light of Christ and wow, the wonders and miracles that have happened to me with "only" the Light of Christ really changed my perception of it.  It's immensely more powerful than we give it credit.  And regardless of what anyone says, it doesn't take much at all to have the Grace of God bless one's life.
 
So to say that everything is taken away is a falacy, only the ordinances and blessings that eminate from them that come with church membership are removed.  An excommunicant can still attend church, can still attend activities, can still fellowship with the saints, can still counsel and have the support of the Bishop and the Stake Presidency and the Relief Society President, and can still reap enormous blessings from reaching for the Light of Christ.
 
So anyone that says that an excommunicant is banished from the church by the church not only is wrong, they don't know what they're talking about so anything more they have to say on the subject should be looked at with suspicion.
 
Any banishment exercised is self imposed.  And, as I posted before, to return to the fold through rebaptism is difficult, but that's because there will be a lot of pride and behavior that will need to be stripped out before one can once again accept that ordinance.

Remaining true to oneself is not a gospel principle.
 
 
And yet there is clear evidence of dishonesty driven by agenda.
 
 
This is not a constitutional or legal issue in any way. The comparison makes no sense. Of course she has the legal right to it. And no one is throwing her in jail, beheading her, or proposing such should be done. And no one should ever revere fighting against God and His kingdom. Ever.
 
 
This is false. The tools, gifts, and blessings she needed to stay afloat are already gone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is contingent on righteousness and obedience.  You don't just get these things by virtue of membership. As with all covenants, If you don't keep up your end, you have no promise.
 
 
Where? Seriously? Since when does excommunication keep her from going to church, keep her from counseling with her bishop? Keep her from praying? Keep her from reading scriptures?
 
Nothing she needs for repentance has been taken from her. She has access to all the counselling, guidance, and mercy that she is willing to receive. She is unwilling! That is on her.
 
 
You really think comparing a sports organization to the church is valid? Or that what some random analyst thinks defines truth and right?
 
 
It is NOT your place to say if it was too harsh. This is the stewardship and prerogative of others.
 
How can it be considered too harsh when she continued to openly rebel? Refusal to meet conditions, Refusal to humble herself. Refusal to accept doctrine and guidance. Refusal to even attend the counsel with a phone call.
 
As the thread title states, what did she expect?!
 
 
Uh....what?
 
 
Wait...so you're interpreting, "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith" as it being a trial because they did not think it was fair that those who were blotted out got blotted out?  You think the " persecution which was heaped upon them" that caused them to bear with much patience was from the church?

I pull mine from the 6.7% I pay in tithing (on my net income, of course, after deducting my mortgage, food expenses, payments on my BMW, and my semi-annual vacations to Bora Bora), leaving 93.3%, which--incidentally--is the same number TFP just gave, which I take as divine confirmation that my position is correct.

Are you saying that while wearing a white shirt?

What I'm not sure here is:
 
 
Why log in to an LDS website to complain about a specific LDS person? Would you log in to a Catholic website if you felt a Catholic ripped you off, or an Atheist website if you felt an Atheist ripped you off?
 
Or, for that matter, a young adult writer's website if a young adult writer ripped you off?
 
I'm not sure what the purpose of posting these sorts of things on this website was supposed to do. There are tens of millions of LDS members in the world. We don't have some sort of Mormon Hotline for reporting people.

I prefer to shampoo my beard in Pepsi

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

I'm certainly not advocating fellow members telling other's they are sinning because they have double piercings. But following the counsel of the prophets is a commandment.
 
I quote D&C 1:14
 
and vs 38
 
 
and D&C 21;4-6
 
 
 
 
and D&C 112:20
 
 
That's just some of the scriptures that say this. There are more.  I could also give hundreds of conference talk quotes on it too...of course you don't seem to accept those as "doctrine"...just people's opinions...so.....

I think the doctrinal point is what is important here.  Wearing earrings/how we wear them/length/# of piercings....none of these things keep us from salvation.
 
Are there consequences to being overly ostentatious, flashy, prideful?  Of course.  Is the council given to us by the Prophets and Apostles good council?  Of course.  Do I want to hear from my fellow church member that I am "sinning" because I have a double piercing on my ear?  NO.  Because it is not a commandment.

So this is out?
 

I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole.
 
Pretty sure I got that right.

It is never a happy thing when someone is excommunicated, but in this case I feel it is for the best.  
 
I am sympathetic for Kate's cause, and even agree with a few points, but her methods repulse me.  I hate to use stereotypes, but she is such a lawyer!!  Talking about twisting words, using the press and popularity as weapons.  It's extremely unChristlike.    I do wish her the best still though, and hope her heart will be softened.

Well, regardless of my disagreement with her views and methods, my heart goes out to her because I am quite aquainted with what she's going to now go through.  
 
From my experience, there is now only two roads she will need to personally decide to trod when it comes to the church: decide to do what it takes to come back into the fold or decide to fight against the church.  Rarely, if ever, will a middle road be able to be taken by an exommunicant.  The buffeting of the adversary will be real, palpable and intense. 
 
Those were very dark days for me, it has been very dark days for other excommunicants I've spoken with, it will be very dark days for her.  I can only hope that she doesn't give in and spiritually drown.

I feel bad for her. I truly think she just doesn't understand. I believe she has honest and good intent. She's merely deceived and blinded by the wisdom of men (or...uh...women, in this case). 
 
I actually really respect that in her statement she plead with others not to leave because of this. It's too bad her views (and others supporting her) are misguided because her passion and good will could be put to positive use instead.
 
It is sad.

Update. I spoke with the Bishop this morning about the meetings. He agreed with me that we should be more respectful of others time. He also said we would see how things went. To which I responded that he was the one with total control over the meeting. I also had the ex sec change up the agenda a little bit to leave of the calendar items.
WC took 1 hour 15 min

au contraire.
 
I'm pretty sure my marriage certificate and temple sealing paperwork only includes two names.  I'm also pretty sure the scriptures say to cleave unto my wife (spouse) and none other.  I have a pernicious in law...and I'm certainly not married to that individual.
 
Yes, they are an issue in our life and not in a good way.

Last time I looked, there were criminals and charlatans of all faiths - or at least the claim to have a faith. Maybe that's the first indication that they are not what they say they are. Lemme see - I'm a good Mormon, I haven't seen you for years, and the first thing I do is ask you for money to go to a funeral. Why didn't your radar go off then?
 
You probably don't know me, OP, but I was a lawyer in a past life. I can't tell you how many times clients' problems were caused by their own poor choices in life. You let this person use you by giving in the first time. The 'friend' then knew exactly what kind of person s/he was dealing with and had no issue with asking you for more money. And you, having not learned your lesson, provided even more money.
 
What is your purpose in coming here - to say all LDS are liars and cheats? For us to get up a collection for you? Some people enjoy getting used, and then playing the martyr when things go wrong. I'm sorry these things happened to you, but you openend the door.

I'm actually in agreement with the bill. The bill keeps those from being discriminated based on sexual orientation. If someone is qualified, they are qualified.
What I don't like about the whole Harry Reid thing is he doesn't speak for the church nor does he speak for its members.

This just showed me your character.
 
What's the saying... Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice...shame on me.

I'm concerned about the meanness of the father to the daughter in this situation.  Who cares who is paying for the wedding stuff?
 
Pay for the wedding as you can (I personally would feel guilty with parents dipping into their anniversary money, but it happens), focus on YOUR marriage.
 
But yes, be prepared for underlying issues.
 
What I would suggest that, as a husband, you follow IC's advice and be the man of the house and protect your wife from her father, if need be.