People are losing temple recs over gay marriage.

[fusnik11]

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?

I know of a stake president and bishop who both are openly against the practices of the church regarding homosexuals, have both sent letters to the twelve, and who both, 8 months later, still hold their ecclesiastical positions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you can be anti-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.

I don't believe it has anything to do with one's political belief, but I suppose it's more about "support", about the prophet's role, about faith in the Proclamation on the Family and in basic principles.

I do not see how one can be a temple recommend holder, and believe in gay marriage. I can see how one could politically differ with the proposed amendment, but it seems if one wants men to marry, that one does not believe in God's prophets, the Proclamation on the Family or the scriptures.

I can see how a mother of a gay son could have more sympathies for gayness than those of us who have no known relatives in that situation. I don't see how it transfers to disbelieving in the roles which the Church declares to be true and proper.

A poor example. I disagree with the policy on the priesthood pre 1978. However, I was not in authority to make any change and it was not my role to direct the Church to change it. If a person in 1976 openly declared to his bishop he did not support the Church's position on the priesthood, my guess is, he wouldn't have received a temple recommend. And if he took it too far, he would have been excommunicated.

The recommend interview is to express testimony and declare oneself basically worthy to enter into a house of worship. If one says, well, I don't really have a testimony that only a man and a woman should marry, isn't that person lacking a testimony of a fundamental element? And if you lack fundamental elements, should you be allowed to go college before you've passed algebra and geometry?

[MikeWaters]

what is someone is anti- church-gay marriage, but doesn't give a hoot if the state allows gays to marry?

seems to me the church should be most concerned about its own definition of marriage and not other temporal marriage matters.

there is only one doctrinal marriage, right?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I know of a stake president and bishop who both are openly against the practices of the church regarding homosexuals, have both sent letters to the twelve, and who both, 8 months later, still hold their ecclesiastical positions.

Since we cannot evaluate the circumstances of this declaration, it is worthless to discuss. We do not what was said, who received it and how far in the decision making process the evaluation.

Case in point. Stake presidents begin to learn about the politics of the Church. A stake president concerned about fundamental policies would send his concerns to a member he knows is sympathetic to his position in order to allow the sympathetic apostle to use it for political discussion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what is someone is anti- church-gay marriage, but doesn't give a hoot if the state allows gays to marry?

seems to me the church should be most concerned about its own definition of marriage and not other temporal marriage matters.

there is only one doctrinal marriage, right?

Difficult question to assess.

My real question is why would an active member, who is therefore heterosexual take too many efforts on behalf of a group that really doesn't impact him too much?

From a practical perspective, I deal with those matters that affect me most, earning a living, raising my kids, being supportive of spouse, exercising and Church work. That consumes my time.

When I was politically active, that was for business purposes and networking purposes. It wasn't to promote some great agenda.

Why do people divert themselves from the act of living to matters so ethereal and which can take themselves away from important matters?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Since we cannot evaluate the circumstances of this declaration, it is worthless to discuss. We do not what was said, who received it and how far in the decision making process the evaluation.

Very true.

I think we can all agree on one thing, if you support gay marriage, you should not be discriminated on temple participation based on your feelings.

Talk about slippery slope, where does the church draw the line? It's been discussed here that the church allows for members to be completely active, hold leadership positions, temple recommends, if they are employed by businesses that sole purpose is contrary to the views of the church, would these peoples rites be stripped as well if bishops started rejecting recommends based on gay marriage beliefs?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Very true.

I think we can all agree on one thing, if you support gay marriage, you should not be discriminated on temple participation based on your feelings.

Talk about slippery slope, where does the church draw the line? It's been discussed here that the church allows for members to be completely active, hold leadership positions, temple recommends, if they are employed by businesses that sole purpose is contrary to the views of the church, would these peoples rites be stripped as well if bishops started rejecting recommends based on gay marriage beliefs?

Well it depends on testimony. If by "supporting gay marriage", you do not have a testimony of the proper and authoritative marriage, then the bishops should deny a TR.

You should have a basic testimony.

And if you are in an anti-LDS organization designed at drawing people away because they reject the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as fallacious, a TR should be denied.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

I think the crux of the problem is in these little words...

Originally Posted by fusnik11

...support gay marriage...

Do you support gay marriage or do you oppose government regulation/discrimination about marital unions?

IMHO the statement "I support gay marriage" implies a disagreement with the fundamental doctrines of the LDS church.

Is there any question about where the church stands on homosexuality being a sin?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well it depends on testimony. If by "supporting gay marriage", you do not have a testimony of the proper and authoritative marriage, then the bishops should deny a TR.

You should have a basic testimony.

And if you are in an anti-LDS organization designed at drawing people away because they reject the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as fallacious, a TR should be denied.

So do you believe that somebody who works in, works for, or owns a business that has a component that is against LDS dogma should be denied a recommend?

Hotel owners, lawyers, some physicians, restaurant owners, grocery store owners, workers of these people, would all have their passage revoked.

Where do you draw the line? What is more damning, to belong to a pro-gay marriage group, or to represent as a lawyer a murderer? What is more damning, to belong to picket in support of gay marriage, or to sell beer at your restaurant?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So do you believe that somebody who works in, works for, or owns a business that has a component that is against LDS dogma should be denied a recommend?

Hotel owners, lawyers, some physicians, restaurant owners, grocery store owners, workers of these people, would all have their passage revoked.

Where do you draw the line? What is more damning, to belong to a pro-gay marriage group, or to represent as a lawyer a murderer? What is more damning, to belong to picket in support of gay marriage, or to sell beer at your restaurant?

Working for a hotel chaing that provides activities which the Church opposes is not the same as working against fundamental doctrines.

Yet Church opposition to gaming is not a fundamental belief. And the members in gaming, usually or almost unanimously do not gamble. That belief is pragmatic. So is the anti-alcohol stance. That belief is not fundamental.

It's based on a testimony of fundamental doctrines, belief in God the Father, Christ, the Restoration, the priesthood, the prophet, and in the covenants of the temple and those made at baptism. And proper marriage is a fundamental belief.