Attending a Gay Wedding


Emsters85
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I cut off all contact with a gay friend or relative, or harassed them, or spread ugly lies about them, or did not invite them to attend a non-religious family event of my own  - and made a big stink about it, or tried to divide them from their other family members.. these things would be wrong. 

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

 

I see. I really should have added that those behaviors would be wrong if all the individual did was invite me to their wedding, since that is all we are talking about here. Of course if they choose to get angry about it, or start forcing the undesireable aspects of the relationship and lifestyle on me or my loved ones, then the issue would no longer be only about courtesy and kindness.. it would then become more about spiritual preservation for myself and my loved ones. And there is no amount of "rudeness" outside of things that are, indisputably, abusive that might keep me from protecting those for whom I am responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what Anatess has stated . . . I personally believe American culture has become too soft due to the PC environment.

 

Personally, I honestly cannot see how attending a homosexual "marriage" can be seen in the light of the gospel.  I certainly can understand how others might believe otherwise but my reasons are as follows:

 

1) Modern day prophets and apostles have spoken on the sin of homosexual marriages.  We know beyond any question that God condemns homosexual relationships and homosexual marriages.

 

2) People do not show up to a wedding only to show "love", it is to show support for the marriage.  Invitations are always something like "please show love and support by attending..." or "please celebrate with us"

 

3) ipso facto. by attending a homosexual marriage I am supporting homosexual marriages.  I'm not going to wear a big sign around my neck saying "I do not support homosexual marriage" while attending a homosexual "wedding".  This is like going into the liquor store, buying booze for my brother and then seeing the Bishop on my way home.  Claiming "well Bishop you see I believe we shouldn't drink, but my brother does believe that, so I just bought some for him because he needs my support" .

 

4) So I would say only attend if you actually believe in supporting homosexual unions, b/c I guarantee you if you attend everyone else in attendance will certainly believe that you think homosexual "marriages" are no biggie.  And make no mistake even if you don't believe in homosexual "marriages" by attending them eventually you will think they are no biggie.

 

The Lord can tell individuals through the Spirit what to do in this situations and as long as they follow the spirit they will be good.

 

But lest we think all Christ preached about was love . . .Christ also said the following:

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt 10: 34 – 35

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 Matt 5: 9

 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

 Additionally, perhaps its not stretching the point too far to say that if His gospel was to cause variance between family members, then one of the ways in which we could be peacemakers would be to not spread the gospel. Can we be peacemakers but also engage in a course of action that Christ has said would cause conflict? 

 

 

 

I think this discussion on attending a gay wedding illustrates some of the issues and scenarios that I hinted at in my posting on Matt 10:34-35 and Matt 5:9. http://lds.net/forums/topic/56397-matt-10-34-35-and-matt-59/#entry812958

  For some people, they will be faced with a choice of either being a peace maker by attending the wedding, or living the gospel in the way they see proper, and not attending the wedding, thereby creating the possibility of conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Well said...  Now lets do what you just did for the other side.

 

In other words, if a person, after much consideration and prayer determines that attending a gay wedding is the right choice, then it is just as illegitimate to accuse that person of not following the commandments, being afraid of confrontation, or that they are allowing the world to dictate there actions.

 

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 not attend a gay wedding. What I am addressing is the judgment against those who feel the Spirit, or even wisdom, has guided them otherwise.

 

 

I can agree with  your statement... can you agree with mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said...  Now lets do what you just did for the other side.

 

In other words, if a person, after much consideration and prayer determines that attending a gay wedding is the right choice, then it is just as illegitimate to accuse that person of not following the commandments, being afraid of confrontation, or that they are allowing the world to dictate there actions.

 

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 not attend a gay wedding. What I am addressing is the judgment against those who feel the Spirit, or even wisdom, has guided them otherwise.

 

 

I can agree with  your statement... can you agree with mine?

 

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 not
  • I 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/intolerant
  • I talked more about what message I'd be sending to others by attending
  • I clarified that I allowed for others to make the decision based on the spirit
  • I elaborated more on perception...more about the messages being sent
  • I wrote more on the invalidity of the hateful accusation
  • I reiterated the message being sent as the point
  • I 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

Thank you...  It only took us 100+ posts to reach the consensus that "hey guess what we agree".  And this was us coming from the same foundation of the importance of the Gospel and following Christ.  See how much potential we had for misunderstanding simply because we might apply those teachings it a slightly different outward fashion?

 

Now take that and ramp it up to someone that we love but has chosen to build on a different foundation such as to create a desire to be married to a person of the same sex.  If you think the misunderstanding we have while under the same "Household of faith" were great then imagine how great they will be outside it.

 

Now we can say it should not matter that others misunderstand our intent.  But I disagree.  I say that because we are the ones trying to get our loved ones to change that we bear the greater burden to make sure they understand our intent.  If we are trying to reach out to our loved ones and get them to change then how they view our motivations are critical.

 

Both sides have that pitfall.  Those that choose to stay away need to make sure that those whose wedding it is understand what your motives really are and that they will not just assume that you are hateful and lacking in love.  Were as those that attend also need to make sure that those whose wedding it is understand that they do not support the sinful behavior that they wedding celebrates. Both groups need to find the right balance how to show the other that they "Love the Sinner but hate the sin"

 

If you think that is going to be as easy and just saying it to them... I would like to point you back to the 100+ we just when through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you...  It only took us 100+ posts to reach the consensus that "hey guess what we agree".  And this was us coming from the same foundation of the importance of the Gospel and following Christ.  See how much potential we had for misunderstanding simply because we might apply those teachings it a slightly different outward fashion?

 

Now take that and ramp it up to someone that we love but has chosen to build on a different foundation such as to create a desire to be married to a person of the same sex.  If you think the misunderstanding we have while under the same "Household of faith" were great then imagine how great they will be outside it.

 

Now we can say it should not matter that others misunderstand our intent.  But I disagree.  I say that because we are the ones trying to get our loved ones to change that we bear the greater burden to make sure they understand our intent.  If we are trying to reach out to our loved ones and get them to change then how they view our motivations are critical.

 

Both sides have that pitfall.  Those that choose to stay away need to make sure that those whose wedding it is understand what your motives really are and that they will not just assume that you are hateful and lacking in love.  Were as those that attend also need to make sure that those whose wedding it is understand that they do not support the sinful behavior that they wedding celebrates. Both groups need to find the right balance how to show the other that they "Love the Sinner but hate the sin"

 

If you think that is going to be as easy and just saying it to them... I would like to point you back to the 100+ we just when through

 

And, here we are again folks... back to square one.

 

ONE SHOULD NOT FEEL PRESSURED TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO JUST TO PROVE THEY LOVE SOMEBODY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, here we are again folks... back to square one.

 

ONE SHOULD NOT FEEL PRESSURED TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO JUST TO PROVE THEY LOVE SOMEBODY.

 

Reality check...   I am not talking about how we feel... I am talking about how we reach others.  I can truly love my child but if I don't express it in a way that they understand... I should not be surprised if they think I do not love them or care. And if they think I do not care then I will not reach them.  I am running under the assumption that WE WANT to reach our Loved ones.  

 

So you are correct if you do not WANT to reach your LOVED one then you should not feel any pressure.

 

Gay marriage of a loved one is a minefield of potentially explosive heartache for those that think it is a sin.  We might not WANT to walk into it any more then Christ WANTED to drink of the bitter cup.  Assuming that our WANT to reach our Loved ones is greater then our DON"T WANT of the bitter cup of walking through the minefield of Gay Marriage then we will have to DO something (We have discuss the two general options already).  Much like Christ drank from the bitter cup because his desire to reach us was greater then his desire not to suffer through the Atonement 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Its not.

 

D&C 121 makes this clear on what the Lord is ok with us using...  While I am sure you know it I will repeat it here

 

 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase oflove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

It seems to me that sharpness is an option but it has a limit of being moved upon by the Spirit that love, compassion, kindness, longsuffering etc simply do not have.  So if in a persons prayer to determine what course of action they should take, the answer comes by "Sharpness" But we should be ready to respond with compassion, kindness, longsuffering etc always

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality check...   I am not talking about how we feel... I am talking about how we reach others.  I can truly love my child but if I don't express it in a way that they understand... I should not be surprised if they think I do not love them or care. And if they think I do not care then I will not reach them.  I am running under the assumption that WE WANT to reach our Loved ones.  

 

So you are correct if you do not WANT to reach your LOVED one then you should not feel any pressure.

 

Gay marriage of a loved one is a minefield of potentially explosive heartache for those that think it is a sin.  We might not WANT to walk into it any more then Christ WANTED to drink of the bitter cup.  Assuming that our WANT to reach our Loved ones is greater then our DON"T WANT of the bitter cup of walking through the minefield of Gay Marriage then we will have to DO something (We have discuss the two general options already).  Much like Christ drank from the bitter cup because his desire to reach us was greater then his desire not to suffer through the Atonement 

 

Reality check.  We are talking about attending a Gay Wedding.  Hopefully, your talking and teaching doesn't just happen at the wedding.  If your child don't understand that you love and care for them even if you don't attend their gay wedding, there hasn't been much talking and teaching going on in that mother-child relationship and attending a wedding is not gonna do much.

 

Same thing with Temple Weddings and telling mom and dad they'd rather go to the temple than have mom and dad at the wedding.  This is actually even more difficult because... the child is the one trying to talk and teach mom and dad something that they haven't grown up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not.

 

D&C 121 makes this clear on what the Lord is ok with us using...  While I am sure you know it I will repeat it here

 

 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase oflove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

It seems to me that sharpness is an option but it has a limit of being moved upon by the Spirit that love, compassion, kindness, longsuffering etc simply do not have.  So if in a persons prayer to determine what course of action they should take, the answer comes by "Sharpness" But we should be ready to respond with compassion, kindness, longsuffering etc always

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality check.  We are talking about attending a Gay Wedding.  Hopefully, your talking and teaching doesn't just happen at the wedding.  If your child don't understand that you love and care for them even if you don't attend their gay wedding, there hasn't been much talking and teaching going on in that mother-child relationship and attending a wedding is not gonna do much.

 

Same thing with Temple Weddings and telling mom and dad they'd rather go to the temple than have mom and dad at the wedding.  This is actually even more difficult because... the child is the one trying to talk and teach mom and dad something that they haven't grown up with.

 

Of course it should...  And yet both events bring out the drama and heartache and pain on a regular basis... Instead of being "yeah I expected that no problem"

 

So the evidence points to what should be happening is not happening and so we need to deal with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it should...  And yet both events bring out the drama and heartache and pain on a regular basis... Instead of being "yeah I expected that no problem"

 

So the evidence points to what should be happening is not happening and so we need to deal with it

 

More accurately, the loud anecdotes point that what should happen doesn't always happen.

 

My brother hasn't been to church since he was a teenager. I still invite him to baby blessings ("I'm happy for you. I won't be there though.") and when he comes to visit he's told what time church starts and he's welcome to come along ("I'll just hang out around here... maybe explore the neighborhood."). It's not an issue and there's no conflict. He knows our family culture and I know his culture. His declining my invitations are not in the least offensive to me and, as far as I can tell, my invitations don't insult him.

 

So add that to your data (which includes the Anatess experiences) and see how it computes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

This is just a probably unnecessary reminder of relying on proper sources when trying to understand the scriptures. What the scripture literally says is Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; What it means is a question of interpretation. One of the things that it might mean is Correct quickly with clarity, power, and authority when moved upon by the Holy Ghost      and that is certainly a good way to correct. I think that with texts such as those that make up the bible, there is a much broader scope for interpretation and guessing as to the "real" meaning than there is for the texts that make up the Doctrine and Covenants, as there are far fewer steps between the source of the text - God - and the written text on the page for the D&C than there is for the Bible.

 

The 2001 version of Gospellink that lives on my hard drive at home has a dictionary that gives definitions of words as they were understood at the time Section 121 was first revealed and that would be a good place to look for definitions of the words betimes and sharpness but unfortunately the online version of Gospellink, which is all I can access at the moment, does not contain such a dictionary. 

 

I've sometimes found that a good source to use when seeking to better understand what the scriptures mean is to look at how specific verses are used in talks given at General Conferences through the scripture citation index developed by BYU. . http://scriptures.byu.edu/. This index tells me that D&C 121:41-43, has been quoted or referred to, either as separate verses or together, more than 100 times in General Conferences, and the Journal of Discourses. I haven't read all of these citations and I haven't checked the 1829 gospellink dictionary so TFP may well be correct when he tells us what the scripture really means, but I do get a little wary when people not acting in their capacity as priesthood leaders, even people as articulate and as well informed as TPF, tell us what the scriptures really mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a probably unnecessary reminder of relying on proper sources when trying to understand the scriptures. What the scripture literally says is Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; What it means is a question of interpretation. One of the things that it might mean is Correct quickly with clarity, power, and authority when moved upon by the Holy Ghost      and that is certainly a good way to correct. I think that with texts such as those that make up the bible, there is a much broader scope for interpretation and guessing as to the "real" meaning than there is for the texts that make up the Doctrine and Covenants, as there are far fewer steps between the source of the text - God - and the written text on the page for the D&C than there is for the Bible.

 

The 2001 version of Gospellink that lives on my hard drive at home has a dictionary that gives definitions of words as they were understood at the time Section 121 was first revealed and that would be a good place to look for definitions of the words betimes and sharpness but unfortunately the online version of Gospellink, which is all I can access at the moment, does not contain such a dictionary. 

 

I've sometimes found that a good source to use when seeking to better understand what the scriptures mean is to look at how specific verses are used in talks given at General Conferences through the scripture citation index developed by BYU. . http://scriptures.byu.edu/. This index tells me that D&C 121:41-43, has been quoted or referred to, either as separate verses or together, more than 100 times in General Conferences, and the Journal of Discourses. I haven't read all of these citations and I haven't checked the 1829 gospellink dictionary so TFP may well be correct when he tells us what the scripture really means, but I do get a little wary when people not acting in their capacity as priesthood leaders, even people as articulate and as well informed as TPF, tell us what the scriptures really mean. 

 

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.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 Sharpness

Reproving—scolding or correcting gently; expressing disapproval.

Betimes—speedily; early; before it is too late.

Sharpness—clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the US but in the UK gay marriage is a civil wedding and is not done in a church or has anything said or relating to God in the service, its purely secular.  Is that the case in the US?  Also do you view a Church wedding where you make commitments before God to be the same as a civil wedding where you are basically making a legally binding contract between two people?

Personally I would have no problem with attending a Gay wedding if it was a civil one, but would not attend a religious one as that would go against the scriptural teachings on what a faith based marriage is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about the US but in the UK gay marriage is a civil wedding and is not done in a church or has anything said or relating to God in the service, its purely secular.  Is that the case in the US?  Also do you view a Church wedding where you make commitments before God to be the same as a civil wedding where you are basically making a legally binding contract between two people?

Personally I would have no problem with attending a Gay wedding if it was a civil one, but would not attend a religious one as that would go against the scriptural teachings on what a faith based marriage is.  

 

My understanding is that in the UK all marriages have to be open to the public.  Because of this the Church has its members have a civil Wedding and then they have 24 hours to get to the local temple and get Sealed.

 

In places were there is no such law then the legal binding contract and the Sealing ceremony happen one after the other in the temple.

 

Should the Laws regarding marriage change so much that we can't do the Legal Binding Contract part in the Temples in the US then it would seem like a logical move for the Church to go to the model it has in the UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LatterDaysGuy, most (all?) US states require the couple to first appear at a county clerk's office to get the marriage license; but once the license is obtained the couple may choose to have the wedding solemnized within a set time period (thirty days in Utah, as I recall) by a judge/civil officer or an ordained clergymen; and LDS bishops/temple sealers qualify under the law. Whoever solemnized the wedding then files a "return on marriage" or "wedding certificate" with the county clerk; and the marriage is seen as legally binding effective the date of the wedding.

I continue to hold that attending a gay wedding--ecclesiastical or civil--is difficult (certainly not impossible, as has been discussed here extensively, but difficult) per our theology because gay sex is a sin; and a gay wedding is the celebration of the official beginning of a gay sexual relationship. (And if one says that a civil wedding is not inherently a celebration, I would ask why we invite guests to a civil wedding ceremony but not to a civil divorce trial).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share