The Believers' Common Cross

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Dudes who want full membership but put their pokey in the wrong poke, so to speak.

You're being very vague today. As was noted earlier, people with SSA are welcome to have full fellowship in the church so long as they remain chaste.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Levin

Andrew Sullivan is gay, he's also an observant Catholic. I find these words, especially the last paragraph, to be poignant, and maybe even familiar for many in the LDS Church -- or any church. The common cross of staying faithful to a Church that has tenets with which your moral compass does not agree.



http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...he-castro.html

I like that last part a lot--esp that very last line. Not only in the gay context. I feel that about other aspects as well.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're being very vague today. As was noted earlier, people with SSA are welcome to have full fellowship in the church so long as they remain chaste.

You don't actually know that this is the way it is applied by all bishops or disciplinary councils.

I have mentioned my own brother, who was fully active, an RM, a believer. He discussed his struggle with a bishop over the course of years, and decided he had to choose a path of foreclosing all prospects of love and companionship with a partner or to choose to pursue those things. He was ex'd. The disciplinary council, as I understand it was not based on discussions of his chastity.

And he remained active for a while after the ex. Seems like maybe a year or so.

Your continual suggestion that this choice is merely about sex is reductive, especially given the emphasis this church places on spousal relationships, which include far more than sex.

[MikeWaters]

What if your brother and his partner started attending church?

It would be interesting to hear how his ward would react to that.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What if your brother and his partner started attending church?

It would be interesting to hear how his ward would react to that.

Actually, as he tells the story (which I recognize may partly be an excuse), a lot of the reason he stopped attending was that he moved, and he felt like going to a new ward was too uncomfortable. He felt like he didn't know how to go in with "hi, I'm new. I"m an excommunicated gay man." So he just stopped going.

When they visit me, they go to church with me. If they went to their own ward together. . . yeah, I think that would be interesting.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Actually, as he tells the story (which I recognize may partly be an excuse), a lot of the reason he stopped attending was that he moved, and he felt like going to a new ward was too uncomfortable. He felt like he didn't know how to go in with "hi, I'm new. I"m an excommunicated gay man." So he just stopped going.

When they visit me, they go to church with me. If they went to their own ward together. . . yeah, I think that would be interesting.

What's the harm in attending once?

I'm trying to imagine, let's say he contacted a Bishop beforehand, and said "I'm planning on showing up, I'm ex'd, I'm a believer, I am respectful, I'm not hear to cause trouble." What would be the reaction of the average Bishop? Say the Bishop asks him to attend. To which your brother replies, "Is there a ward that I *could* attend?" Of course, Bishop can't answer for every ward. So Bishop kicks it over to the Stake President and the High Council. I'm trying to imagine what that conversation would be like with the Stake Presidency. Is it possible they would ask him to attend? Would the stake president ask for a "volunteer" ward? Would the stake president tell the refusing Bishop to allow him to attend?

And what if there is a Mike Waters on the High Council? Hmmm.....such interesting scenarios.

If you are a single gay guy, I don't think many people care. But a dapper gay couple, tongues might wag.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

You don't actually know that this is the way it is applied by all bishops or disciplinary councils.

No, I'm not omniscient, but I know what the counsel and guidelines are. Rare is the bishop that doesn't try to follow them.

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I have mentioned my own brother, who was fully active, an RM, a believer. He discussed his struggle with a bishop over the course of years, and decided he had to choose a path of foreclosing all prospects of love and companionship with a partner or to choose to pursue those things. He was ex'd. The disciplinary council, as I understand it was not based on discussions of his chastity.

And he remained active for a while after the ex. Seems like maybe a year or so.

Your continual suggestion that this choice is merely about sex is reductive, especially given the emphasis this church places on spousal relationships, which include far more than sex.

I'm not clear on what you're insinuating that your brother got ex'd for. Are you saying they ex'd solely because he struggled with SSA?

About your last sentence: in this church, people are not disciplined by leadership for desires. People are disciplined for behavior.