Can you lose your temple recommend if. . .

[Shawn_]

Nobody is trying to "impose" SSM on anybody else. If same-sex marriage is recognized by the state, that simply allows those who want to participate in it to do so. It doesn't force anybody else to enter into or perform same-sex marriages. It doesn't deny heterosexual couples or churches any freedoms whatsoever, it just adds a freedom to a group (LGBT) that didn't have it before.

What I mean by the tongue-in-cheek ex cathedra question was that, unlike Roman Catholics, we do not believe our leaders to be infallible.

I disagree. The activists supporting SSM seek to impose it on everyone else in the sense that they want such relationships to be officially endorsed and recognized. The majority of people do not want to endorse and recognize such unions, and don't want their states to do so. Why can't those people be left alone?

[Hala401]

I disagree. The activists supporting SSM seek to impose it on everyone else in the sense that they want such relationships to be officially endorsed and recognized. The majority of people do not want to endorse and recognize such unions, and don't want their states to do so. Why can't those people be left alone?

So, you are the majority? I think most people want the people of faith to act like it, and the GBLT folk to stop with the persecution complex. Personally, I am just as sick of sanctimonious people as I am of those others.

[Shawn_]

Who is Shawn?

That is the great mystery! Some say that he appears on high value stamps in Sweden, and that he is illegal in 17 U.S. states. He once brought a knife to a gunfight, just to even the odds, and he has won the lifetime achievement award...twice. Who is he, indeed.

[Shawn_]

So, you are the majority? I think most people want the people of faith to act like it, and the GBLT folk to stop with the persecution complex. Personally, I am just as sick of sanctimonious people as I am of those others.

Yes, I am part of the majority who have voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman only. I don't think it's persecution. It is not loving to encourage or enable hurtful behavior. Individuals can be loved without supporting all of their actions.

[HEthePrimate]

I disagree. The activists supporting SSM seek to impose it on everyone else in the sense that they want such relationships to be officially endorsed and recognized. The majority of people do not want to endorse and recognize such unions, and don't want their states to do so. Why can't those people be left alone?

So, you're in favor of denying marriage rights to a minority group because the majority says so? What if we were talking about interracial marriage? Would you support the "right" of the majority to deny interracial couples the right to marry?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not "impose" anything on straight couples any more than allowing interracial couples to marry imposes anything on same-race couples.

[Hala401]

It was once illegal for Blacks to marry whites. In places in the Middle East, marrying a Kafir will get you both killed by the removal of your head. I am sick onto death of all these people running around saying they believe in and are guided by God and then doing what they want.

[Vort]

So, you're in favor of denying marriage rights to a minority group because the majority says so?

There is no such thing as "marrying" a member of your own sex, any more than you can "marry" a dog or the planet Mars. I oppose redefining a word to meet the sexual perversions of a minority.

[Shawn_]

So, you're in favor of denying marriage rights to a minority group because the majority says so? What if we were talking about interracial marriage? Would you support the "right" of the majority to deny interracial couples the right to marry?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not "impose" anything on straight couples any more than allowing interracial couples to marry imposes anything on same-race couples.

I am in favor of denying marriage to same-sex couples (which is not a right), as is the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It was once illegal for Blacks to marry whites. In places in the Middle East, marrying a Kafir will get you both killed by the removal of your head. I am sick onto death of all these people running around saying they believe in and are guided by God and then doing what they want.

To both of you, interracial marriage is not the issue we are discussing.

[HEthePrimate]

There is no such thing as "marrying" a member of your own sex, any more than you can "marry" a dog or the planet Mars. I oppose redefining a word to meet the sexual perversions of a minority.

It used to be that there was no such thing as "marrying" a person of another race. Society "redefined" marriage to allow interracial marriage.

[HEthePrimate]

To both of you, interracial marriage is not the issue we are discussing.

No duh! But it is a useful comparison, IMHO.

[Vort]

It used to be that there was no such thing as "marrying" a person of another race. Society "redefined" marriage to allow interracial marriage.

This is false. Interracial was illegal, not undefined.

[Shawn_]

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults....

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage….

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children….

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner….

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”...

Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society....

By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

The Divine Institution of Marriage

I am seeing questions that have already been answered by the Church. Concerns about tolerance and love have already been addressed. All you have to do is read what the Church has published.

We are talking about weakening the entire social fabric. Marriage and family are all about rearing children. There is no sufficient reason to define new forms of marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage "constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family."

Some here are calling for tolerance. "The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love." We do not have to tolerate or condone transgression in order to love!

Stop talking about how SSM "will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way." Talk about "how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The "dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally."

There is more in that official publication of the Church. It answers the important questions and plainly states how SSM would be harmful. What more do you need? Follow the Brethren.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Shawn_

[Over43]

No, you can't lose your resommend for not supporting 8. Some years ago, previous to 8, there was another voter innitiative to ban same sex marriages on the California ballot. Someone in our ward asked a friend of mine and I to help cold call people to get them to think about voting "yes" on it. Both of us are confident heterosexuals, but we told the fellow no. There were no consequences suffered at the hands of our bishopric or stake president.

[pam]

May I point out the church has never said they don't agree that many of the same privileges afforded those in heterosexual relationships shouldn't be allowed by those in the gay community.

The church has and always has been against changing the definition of marriage. There are some differences there.

Edited June 12, 2012 by pam
typo

[Shawn_]

To follow-up on what Pam said, the Church stated:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

That's the same page I referred to above.

[Timpman]

So it looks like Desmond spooked the "liberal" Mormons away. Btw, Desmond, I am so glad you got out of the Hatch.

[ruthiechan]

So. . . am I the only one happy that iinarihoudai talked to her Bishop about her concerns and is still worthy of a Temple recommend?

[Shawn_]

It's good that iinarihoudai got a temple recommend. I would like others to respond. I wouldn't label them as "liberal Mormons" or anything like that, but the following is what I addressed:

Kich: Though I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I won't lift a finger to oppose it either. Pushing laws that force our beliefs on others is ignoring God's gift of Free Agency.

They need to choose the right path of their own free will, not because the law says they can't do it. Free Agency necessitates the choice to choose either way...

Since it is not a victimizing crime, and since gay marraige does not infringe upon our rights as hetrosexual religious beings, there is no logical reason to disallow the marriage of a same-sex couple.

HEthePrimate: I frankly disagree with the Church pushing Prop. 8 and similar laws. Though I believe the Church leaders are inspired about many things, I do not believe they are infallible, and reserve the right to disagree with them. There is no obligation in the Gospel to follow leaders if they're wrong.

Hala401: Did we like it when others tried to force us to stop what we believed? Do we have the right to inflict on others what was inflicted upon us?

[HEthePrimate]

I was wondering, do you think you can lose your temple recommend if you do not support prop 8 or anything like it? I believe that missionary work is the only right course of action not forcing people to adhere to our belief system. However, the question on whether or not you are sympathetic to groups that are contrary to the gospel leaves me wondering that if I were too open about this opinion I may run the risk of losing my recommend. I have noticed that other liberal Mormons also tend to use a pseudonym as well which makes me wonder if this is something I need to be concerned with. I can't ask my Bishop either because the last thing I want to hear is, Sister please return your recommend.

I think the original purpose of the question was to see if the person supports polygamy or groups that support it, and also groups that are specifically anti-Mormon (i.e. whose main purpose is to tear down the Church). If a person were to be overstrict about interpreting that question, he could not join any political parties or other organizations because none of them are in perfect accords with that the Church teaches. Likewise, what if my sister (or brother, etc.) leaves the Church? Am I supposed to stop associating with her? I don't think so. So I think we need to be careful not to apply that question too loosely, and stick to anti-Mormon and polygamist groups.

Peace.

[mnn727]

I was wondering, do you think you can lose your temple recommend if you do not support prop 8 or anything like it? I believe that missionary work is the only right course of action not forcing people to adhere to our belief system. However, the question on whether or not you are sympathetic to groups that are contrary to the gospel leaves me wondering that if I were too open about this opinion I may run the risk of losing my recommend. I have noticed that other liberal Mormons also tend to use a pseudonym as well which makes me wonder if this is something I need to be concerned with. I can't ask my Bishop either because the last thing I want to hear is, Sister please return your recommend.

It really depends on how far you carry your dissent.

[LDSJewess]

I was wondering, do you think you can lose your temple recommend if you do not support prop 8 or anything like it? I believe that missionary work is the only right course of action not forcing people to adhere to our belief system. However, the question on whether or not you are sympathetic to groups that are contrary to the gospel leaves me wondering that if I were too open about this opinion I may run the risk of losing my recommend. I have noticed that other liberal Mormons also tend to use a pseudonym as well which makes me wonder if this is something I need to be concerned with. I can't ask my Bishop either because the last thing I want to hear is, Sister please return your recommend.

My take on this is to review the questions that you answered when you interviewed for your Temple recommend.

There may be a fine line but in my humble opinion when you answer yes to if you sustain the leaders of the church, this means that you accept, honor and uphold the church leaders and their callings in the church. Whether you agree with their political views is not the question.

That said there is also a fine line when it comes to what is a political issue and what is a religious issue. Since we have a separation of Church and State in America, you may need to define for yourself.

From a church stand point, it is ok to be a gay member as long as one does not act upon it. So I suppose one could also infer that if a gay couple married but did not consumate the said marriage then this could be acceptable. This would seem odd of course but then again their could be gay couples that want the union for legal reasons such an insurance, tax or inheritance issues etc:

From my personal stand point, I don't really care if gays marry or not. Although I would prefer they simply called it civil union. I don't understand or agree with gay lifestyle but I'm pretty much a live and let live person and prefer to spend time working on improving my own life with my family.

I don't think that those who do not support prop 8 are necessarily forcing their religious beliefs on gays or anyone else. Indeed I know a number of people who are not LDS, not even Christian, or for that matter practice any religion at all, however, they are not comfortable with gays being married.

As for your recommend, I highly doubt a Bishop would just walk up to you and say "Sister Please return your recommend." In the event that you took your strong political views to the streets and spoke out against the church, then that may be another story. But likely your Bishop would opt to discuss the issue and counsel you before such a decision is made.