People are losing temple recs over gay marriage.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Well then I would say the same about this guy. Assuming he answered the question "yes" based on his support of gay marriage then I commend him for his honesty but I really find his complaint laughable.

I want to be a part of an organization and recieve all of the benefits of membership in that organization but I do not agree with the philosophy or the requirements of that organization.

People seem to miss the boat on this stuff. Either the church is true or it isn't. The BoM is scripture or it isn't. It is black and white because the doctrine itself claims it is black and white. The church doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room. We believe we have a prophet who talks to God. We believe God is perfect and his prophet will never lead us wrong.

So... We're pretty much right or wrong. You can't make a claim like "I talk to God" and be partially right.

Obviously some people like to say that the church hasn't "officially" come out and said that anyone who supports gay marriage is a sinner. IMHO they don't really have to. It is all in how you answer the question.

Does this kid "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" If he feels he does then that's the end of it.

If he feels that he can say with a clean heart that he doesn't then that's the end of it.

I can believe that there are people who support gay marriage and are worthy recommend holders. I assume they feel that the US Gov. does not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals in defining marital unions. If that is how they feel, I don't think their belief about what the US Gov. can and can not do is in opposition to what the church teaches. It's the sin underneath. Do they feel that homosexuality is not a sin? Some people can't separate the two. IMHO those people should answer "yes" and should move on because they don't agree with what the church teaches and must therefore assume that the prophet is not a prophet and we are all liars.

[MikeWaters]

I don't know why the subject would come up unless the kid brought it up himself.

I myself don't support the marriage amendment (for reasons I won't bore you all with right now), but I wouldn't call myself pro-gay marriage. I know that the President of the church didn't tell me what to believe. He asked me to be educated and involved. I know the stake president has directed us in the exact same manner, that it was not a directive to adopt a specific position. So I wouldn't even worry about addressing the topic in such an interview.

Much ado about nothing. Know your audience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is old news. We have already debated it a few times. Here is one thread I could find:

http://70.47.38.51/forum/showthread.php?t=2644

[Robin]

Originally Posted by homeboy

This is old news. We have already debated it a few times. Here is one thread I could find:

http://70.47.38.51/forum/showthread.php?t=2644

Well then I guess I will just add my friend's experience as something new here. I don't know the woman, and I think it is pretty understandable that she would support gay marriage considering she has a gay son who is in a committed relationship. According to her son (and I will give them the benefit of the doubt), openly supporting gay marriage was reason enough to deny her a rec.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

Well then I guess I will just add my friend's experience as something new here. I don't know the woman, and I think it is pretty understandable that she would support gay marriage considering she has a gay son who is in a committed relationship. According to her son (and I will give them the benefit of the doubt), openly supporting gay marriage was reason enough to deny her a rec.

And I don't have a problem with the Church doing that. A member who openly supports gay marriage doesn't understand the Church's view on marriage. It is one thing for political reasons not to be excited about the proposed amendment, it's quite another thing to promote an anathema to the Church's fundamental concept of binding man and woman together. A person believing in gay marriage does not share the fundamental beliefs of the Church.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Robin

Well then I guess I will just add my friend's experience as something new here. I don't know the woman, and I think it is pretty understandable that she would support gay marriage considering she has a gay son who is in a committed relationship. According to her son (and I will give them the benefit of the doubt), openly supporting gay marriage was reason enough to deny her a rec.

Robin, it's one of two things:

a. The kid has an over zealous bishop

or,

b. The kid is not telling you the entire story

My money is on the latter as I know plenty of people who oppose the church's 'unofficial stance' on gay marriage and have recently renewed their recommends.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Robin, it's one of two things:

a. The kid has an over zealous bishop

or,

b. The kid is not telling you the entire story

My money is on the latter as I know plenty of people who oppose the church's 'unofficial stance' on gay marriage and have recently renewed their recommends.

Fus, I disagree. Your post implies that there is a uniform and systematic standard church wide that bishops use to handle these situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a huge variation in how bishops deal with members. That is why two people can fornicate and one gets told to stop taking the sacrament for a month and the other gets disfellowshipped or worse. Bishops are human. Uniformity across the church is unrealistic.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Fus, I disagree. Your post implies that there is a uniform and systematic standard church wide that bishops use to handle these situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a huge variation in how bishops deal with members. That is why two people can fornicate and one gets told to stop taking the sacrament for a month and the other gets disfellowshipped or worse. Bishops are human. Uniformity across the church is unrealistic.

That's why I said his Bishop is over zealous, the church has not officially stated that you cannot hold a temple recommend if you support gay marriage. If a bishop denies you your rite to enter the temple based on your support, he is overstepping his bounds of jurisdiction and dominion.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

That's why I said his Bishop is over zealous, the church has not officially stated that you cannot hold a temple recommend if you support gay marriage. If a bishop denies you your rite to enter the temple based on your support, he is overstepping his bounds of jurisdiction and dominion.

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there...supporting Gay marraige policies (something the church has stated a position on) is equivalent to supporting and affiliating with groups whose teachings go against the teachings of the church?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there...supporting Gay marraige policies (something the church has stated a position on) is equivalent to supporting and affiliating with groups whose teachings go against the teachings of the church?

you can be pro-gay marriage and not have any knowledge or affiliation with any group or individual that supports gay marriage.

they need to add a question. "do you have any political views not in harmony with the political lobbying efforts of the church or first presidency press releases?"

That would clarify some things. But until then, we have a lot of latitude IMO.

I'm not sure it's the exact view that matters. It's the beliefs surrounding the view. If you believe in gay marriage and that means that you don't believe in the prophetic role of GBH, then that may be a TR issue.