The Folk Prophet

I'm not sure that's really the valid comparison. Though I'd think that, based on knowledge, ether one would stand just as accountable as the next, as our accountability is directly linked to our knowledge of right and wrong. So compare, perhaps, the person who was baptized and endowed because they were just born and raised that way, but they never really understood it, and the person who has had spiritual witnesses, understand covenants, and then chooses to not be baptized or endowed. Regardless, what we're talking about is someone who's made promises to God. I would contend that excommunication does not release us from those promises. A promise to God is a promise to God. He or she who does not keep said promises, excommunicated or not, will stand just as accountable for not keeping them, excommunicated or not. And he or she who is unrepentant for adultery within a covenant and not excommunicated is on the same level as someone who is unrepentant for adultery within a covenant and is excommunicated. Either way, unrepentant adultery (under covenant at the time of adultery) is the sin. Either way the promise was broken.

I think, maybe, you need to more carefully consider the meaning of the word "require".

I've heard this a lot. Any maybe what you mean by it is not exactly what I'm reading into it -- that excommunication takes away covenants so the person is somehow less responsible to them, and thereby somehow less culpable. If that's not what you meant then forgive the question. But I have, actually, heard people say exactly that, in church even. That excommunication is somehow a good thing because it "releases" (the word you use here that leads me to the inferred idea) people from their covenants. My question is simply this: Where does this idea come from? I keep hearing people say it, and/or say they've heard leaders say it. But can it be supported doctrinally or otherwise through any comments, quotes, talks, scriptures, or the like? I mean, what's the idea here? The person who doesn't get excommunicated and continues to commit adultery stands up at judgment day and gets assigned the Telestial Kingdom, but the person who did get excommunicated and continues to commit adultery gets the Terrestrial?

By these two statements, it reads like you don't think fornicating with a fiance before marriage is a major sin. I'm not saying one way or the other about excommunication -- as that's between each individual and their ecclesiastical leaders. But still...fornicating before marriage = major sin.

My wife asked me this same question when I was talking with her about this subject the other day. My response was something along the lines of this: Marriage of a man to a woman is ordained of God and is a good thing, regardless of the other problems in their lives. Gay marriage is not ordained of God and is a bad thing, regardless of other good things in their lives. That being said, there are certainly some straight weddings that I would not attend no matter the relationship I had with those being married.

Um...read the sarcastic tone man. Does the dancing banana mean nothing to you?

If it's a wife, they tell the story of how they met as a couple/introduce the family. (Typically. Sometimes the husband does this...but not usually).

By the way. I didn't make this up. I know people love to accuse me of that. But I very rarely do. from https://www.lds.org/new-era/2011/06/doctrine-and-covenants-1214143?lang=eng Reproving Betimes with SharpnessReproving—scolding or correcting gently; expressing disapproval. Betimes—speedily; early; before it is too late. Sharpness—clarity.

You can quibble all you want about the meaning of "sharpness". I'll grant that there is flexibility in the meaning there. And "reprove" has some shades to it that can go from a serious lashing to a gentle correction. But the meaning of betimes is early or quickly, which is really the point I was making. Betimes sounds like sometimes. So those uneducated in the matter (most people, because it is not a commonly used word) may well think it means sometimes. It does not. That is not "interpretation" any more than saying canine means dog. There is no "interpretation" of canine to mean cat. I'm not "interpreting" scriptures, and you're response is needlessly contrary. I'm explaining the meanings of the words (particularly, and importantly, "betimes"). If you want to take different meaning or "interpretation" out of those words that is your business. I'm not telling you how you should apply said scripture in your life. Now if you want to talk about symbolism, interpretation, and application, that's a different matter entirely. I can give my opinion on that, and it would be my opinion. I could quote authorities I suppose to back up my thinking. None of this, however, is relative to the post I made. Betimes means what it means. Now, I will grant you, some modern dictionaries have started including the definition as "occasionally" because when common misuse becomes common enough, it can become part of our language. And one might legitimately argue that Joseph Smith meant this modern usage of it when he used it. But to argue that I'm "interpreting" scripture is a bit silly. Moreover, nothing I implied, except the betimes=quickly, really affects the intent. "Correct with clarity" easily encompasses a "beat them senseless with wrath" reading, if one so chooses to "interpret" the scripture that way. And when moved upon by the Holy Ghost covers "sometimes" if one so chooses to "interpret" it that way. So the only question of so-called "interpretation" is whether one should do so quickly or not. Once again, interpret it the way you want. I'm only pointing out what the word actually means. I now apologize for the overuse of sarcastic quotes. Edit: I did mis-type/speak a bit in my statement, "The scripture literally says:". What I meant to write was, "The scripture literally means:" Double-edit: I could care less about anyone's view of exactly what "reprove" means. I did not change it to "correct" to try and twist any meaning. But the intent of pointing out that sharpness may well mean clarity instead of anger, I think, is a potentially important point. Too many people, in my opinion, use this scripture as an excuse to yell at other people. I don't think that is the intent. I will grant you...that is my interpretation. Feel free to your own.

I believe anatess gave me power of attorney over all her points a month back or so. So maybe you should rethink this.

It should be clarified, just in case you or anyone isn't aware, that betimes does NOT mean sometimes. I means early, quickly, in good time, speedily, etc. I also tend to think that the usage of the word sharpness here is predominately misunderstood. It does not mean with anger. It means with clarity and power. (Follow the footnotes if you doubt). The scripture literally says: Correct quickly with clarity, power, and authority when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think it's about not wanting to or wanting to reach them. I just don't think it's valid that showing "love" via compassion, tolerance, and group hugs is the only way to reach people. I quote, for example, from Enos 1:23 "And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction."

paracaidista508, It's not enforced evenly because that is not the point. Many, many things are not enforced evenly. With most things, we are taught correct principles and left to govern ourselves. There are, however, certain things that our leadership has determined are strict lines. The evenness of the matter isn't relevant. The line is the line. But that hard line is only for temple recommends. Anyhow, the culpability we will have before God is really significantly more important. That is a point that so many people seem to miss. There's this whole, "temple recommend=worthy" concept that permeates the church. It is invalid. Likewise is the, "this won't get me excommunicated" concept (another thing that is highly uneven). But our standing before God will not be uneven. God is no respecter of persons. We will stand accountable for our choices, whether we "technically" qualified for a temple recommend and/or membership in the church or not.

I cannot speak for others, but I cannot quite follow how it is that you have come to the conclusion from my posts in this thread that I am accusing those who have or would attend gay weddings of not following the commandments, being afraid of confrontation, etc. I do think, in general, that attending a gay wedding is a bad idea. But it is not for any of the reasons you seem to think. In reviewing my posts, my reasons for thinking this way have been thus: It shows support whether you mean it to or notI showed some agreement with JaG's idea that it's like watching a loved one commit suicide (I then disagreed with part of that)I claimed that it is manipulative to respond to a moral stand by accusing someone of being hateful/intolerantI talked more about what message I'd be sending to others by attendingI clarified that I allowed for others to make the decision based on the spiritI elaborated more on perception...more about the messages being sentI wrote more on the invalidity of the hateful accusationI reiterated the message being sent as the pointI put forth the drinking example Now...wherein in these messages did I accuse others of not following the commandments, being afraid of confrontation, or that they are allowing the world to dictate their actions? It seems to me, upon review, that my point has been clear and steady, and deals fairly directly with what we represent, what we communicate, and which communications are truly important. And in none of these points have I expressed it in terms of black-and-white, concrete, everyone-else-is-wrong-but-me, sort of terms. I have consistently allowed for the belief's of others, never terming them apostate or evil. If I were to make any accusations whatsoever in this regard, it would merely be that I think some people are a bit short sighted as to consequences. But even in that, I allow that there is valid wisdom, insight and inspiration well beyond my own out there in the world. So I'm honestly a bit flummoxed at the assertions coming from you on the matter, at least those directed at my part in this particular thread. If you were accusing me of prioritizing the messages backwards, or even if you were riposting with a "you're the short-sighted one", then we may disagree on the matter, but at least the contention would be valid. As it is, I just feel like I (and others) are being accused of things that just are not there. So let me requite with my own clarity: Yes I agree with you. Attending a gay wedding does not automatically mean someone is not following the commandments, are afraid of confrontation, or are allowing the world to dictate their actions.

I thought of a way to illustrate my thinking on the matter somewhat. As will all analogies, this isn't perfect, but there are some key ideas in it that make sense. Compare the idea of drinking at a social event. This may be, of course, less common nowadays, but there was a time (and I'm sure there still are situations) where sharing an alcoholic beverage is considered a cultural nicety. Now, I step into a situation of that sort -- let's say for business -- and I politely decline the drink. The person who offers it is offended. In said situation, I do my best to be kind, loving, charitable, etc. I explain as clearly as possible. But I do not drink. And even after all the explaining and outreach my action is still considered offensive, so be it. I do not drink. Now, I am well aware that one imperfection in this analogy is that drinking alcohol is a known commandment with no exceptions. Attending a gay wedding is not. But if we can step beyond that difference and consider the other principles in the analogy, I think it stands up rather nicely. In other words, if a person, after much consideration and prayer determines that attending gay weddings is the wrong choice, then it is just as illegitimate to accuse that person of not showing love, understanding, or compassion as it is to do so to the person who also believes it is wrong to take a drink. Just as not taking a drink is, in actuality, totally irrelevant to showing someone love, so is attendance at a gay marriage. Any supposition that anyone has that it is an act of hate or cruelty is mistaken. And it is not our place, ever, to take the drink anyways just so people perceive we love them more. I'll add to this, to be clear again, that I do not hold it against anyone if they feel like the Spirit, or even wisdom, is guiding them to attend a gay wedding. What I am addressing is the judgment against those who feel the Spirit, or even wisdom, has guided them otherwise.

Even some of these things you mention have some gray to them as well. I don't think, for example, that every decision made to socialize less with someone who has turned their lifestyle away from that which is compatible with yours is "wrong". Close friends are close friends for a reason. Having some of those reasons change means that, perhaps, said person may not be as close of a friend, and thereby, said person may not be invited to all the same things as they would otherwise. And words like "harass" have so much ambiguity in them. My mother harassed me all the time when I was a kid. My mother-in-law still harasses me. I do not believe (in most cases) that they were "wrong" to do so. I know this reply is nit-picking. Just...you know...sharing my thoughts though. :)

Why does it feel like good communication isn't really occurring here? :)

Either way, I gotta wonder about the lie. I'm sorry I burned the toast. It's okay. - true vs. I love burnt toast. - lie

I agree with the type (mostly) and soul-mate ideas. I don't agree (and neither does the church by way of teachings in the past that I am familiar with) that dating anyone is acceptable as long as they're friendly. Regardless of intent, we marry who we date. We should not be dating people who do not have the standards we would marry. Our "type" should be those who we would marry, per point 4 of your post. Otherwise, I agree. Lest you think I never do anything but argue with you... Amen!

Doctrine is relative, just like morality. Whatever a person believes is right is moral. Whatever a person believes is truth is doctrine. Dance banana. Dance!

I agree. But where we seem to disagree (perhaps) is in what message needs to be understood.

This is very interesting, and I had a similar thought, but a different conclusion. If I had a child that was getting gay married, likewise, they would also long since know where I stand, etc., on the matter, and there should be no ambiguity on the matter whatsoever as to their understanding that A. I love them in spite of it and B. That I will not attend. Because of this, I believe that any expression or determination that they have that they are not loved would be, as I have said, a manipulative attempt to coerce acceptance. And they may go so far internally even so as to convince themselves that they are not loved. But it would not be valid. It makes me think of when I was a child and how often I was in a fury in my room, feeling so abused and hated, telling myself that my parents didn't love me, etc., because of the injustice they had imbued. As an adult, I fully well know that non of this was valid. No matter the strength of my feelings and expression, the truth is that in retrospect, I know full well that my parents very much loved me, that their actions, including punishment and the like, were motivated by love, and that I am a better person for it. I know that their acquiescing to my petulance would have been harmful.

Wait...why is is a valid concern that the gay marriage people might misread our intent as hateful if we don't attend their weddings, but the same is unjust applied in reverse...that they may just as well misread our meaning in attending as being supportive of things that we are not supportive of. Something that, in my opinion, may actually be worse. My communication methods are, certainly, less than perfect in many cases. But I was not translating Eowyn's statement to accuse her of supporting gay marriage. I wasn't twisting her words just to make a point or win an argument. If what we're discussing here is perception, then we're really debating the issue of whether it's more important to be perceived as loving than it is to be perceived as standing for truth and right. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the most important part of what constitutes truth and right is being perceived as "loving" (in quotes because true Christ-like love is significantly more than perception or feel-good comradely). We're talking about wherein lies the greater damage. A perception of support or a perception of intolerance. I am claiming that the perception of intolerance, contrary to the popular view on the matter, is not necessarily that harmful, and perhaps even positive. I am claiming that standing ground in such matters sets examples, teaches, and is in some cases a better tool for seeking out the lost sheep than prioritizing the perception of love as paramount in every case. Of course in standing one's ground we need to do so kindly. I'm not advocating cutting them out of your lives, nor I'm not advocating hateful speech. But the perception of intolerance in today's world is one of the adversary's greatest weapons. We are constantly bludgeoned by the world that if we are even perceived as intolerant in any matter then we are guilty of the greater sin. I call malarkey on that. I'm not saying by that that we should never worry about other's perceptions of us, or that we shouldn't try and be perceived as loving. I am saying that it is not the core standard to live by. I am saying that it may not be (probably not, imo) the primary concern in the matter of attending gay weddings. But I respect (honestly and very much) Eowyn's prayerful choice. And I am not claiming that she was wrong to attend. I used her statement as a springboard to an idea about perception as it pertains to the conversation. Eowyn, I apologize for my poor communication on that matter if I offended you. Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that I very much allow for someone, like Eowyn, to follow the Spirit and to choose to attend. I do not begrudge anyone that decision. JaG has said similar things. No one has drawn a hard line in the sand in the matter (particularly for others), or stated unequivocally that no one should ever attend a gay wedding. No one has said that anyone who attends a gay wedding is apostate or anything close to it. Inference on your part (or others') does not demonstrate implication. Also, you're point is just as unfair. You have taken one example...where I quoted only the word supporting...and stripped out all the other times where I've stated, quite plainly, that I allow for personal choice in the matter, as directed by the Spirit, as completely valid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0

Interesting idea. However, there are (theoretically) certain benefits to careful and wise usage of caffeine. I'm not sure the same could be said of nicotine. I expect there would be a difference.