Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

The question gave a good hypothetical, but here's a slightly modified one to think about:

A happily married gay couple has been together for 10 years. They got married legally as soon as they were able to, and only moved in together after that. (You can add that they have adopted children and have a very happy family, if you want to take the hypothetical even further).

Now, the missionaries contact them and both of the partners in the relationship gain a testimony of the Gospel and want to be baptized. Do they need to break up in order to do that?

The polygamy example given in the original question actually covers this pretty well: the answer is yes, they'd have to break up to join the church. This is very unfortunate. I agree with David O McKay from the source given when he says: "That is a cruel thing to do."

1. Note that the source for that quote was a chapter written by D. Michael Quinn. D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated for apostasy and possibly for homosexuality. (source) He has written many things critical of the Church and its policies and doctrines, including that chapter.
2. Note that he, in turn, doesn't give a source for that quote. Maybe President McKay said that. Maybe he didn't. It's hard to verify without knowing when he said it, in what context, and where that is recorded. Given the provider of the quote and its like of verifiability, I'm skeptical that it's accurately conveyed or even true.
3. Note that abandonment of sin, no matter what the context, is necessary for salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Regardless of what a particular state or nation chooses to define as 'marriage', the Church defines homosexuality as a serious sin. In a sense that situation isn't unique. We're all required to give up things that we crave/desire/'love' because they are against the commandments of God. So of course that gay couple will experience pain as they dissolve their relationship. But doing so enables them to achieve eternal life. Is that cruel? Absolutely not! It's an unfair trade, but skewed in their favor. They give up one thing (a sin) and gain everything! It may be very difficult, but it's absolutely worth it.

Damasta wrote:D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated for apostasy and possibly for homosexuality. (source) He has written many things critical of the Church and its policies and doctrines, including that chapter.

He also has a strong testimony of the Gospel. (source) While his writings are certainly critical of the church, his sources are generally well-researched and properly cited.

Damasta wrote:Maybe President McKay said that. Maybe he didn't.

Whether he said it or not, I agree with the sentiment.

I've always been a bit angry at how the early Mormons were threatened and abused for their polygamy, especially when reading journals from the period that show very happy and loving families in a productive society. It's weird to see the church on the other side, breaking up the loving families.*

It's hard for me to see any value in breaking up a happy family. I understand the theological necessity for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very cruel. Then again, excommunication is also very difficult. Sometimes truth and repentance hurts very much. Such are the trials of life. The Gospel is very cruel when viewed without an eternal perspective.

Damasta wrote:Regardless of what a particular state or nation chooses to define as 'marriage', the Church defines homosexuality as a serious sin.

Thankfully, there has been precedent of the Church changing what it defines as a serious sin, so I can continue to petition the Lord to have homosexual relations in the confines of a legal marriage removed from that list. I'll also ask him to get rid of excommunication while I'm at it.

*(I am aware of no families of the type in the hypothetical that have been affected by the church's policy, but it's bound to happen in the future if the policy remains the same)

Yarjka wrote:He also has a strong testimony of the Gospel.

His strong belief in the truths of the Gospel doesn't change the fact that he was excommunicated for strongly believing (and promulgating) things that the Apostles of Jesus Christ found unacceptable (I say it that way because there is some evidence that the excommunications of the September Six originated from the Quorum of the Twelve, rather than the local Stake President--source). He continues to believe (and promulgate) those things. Thus one should be careful not to take anything that Quinn says at face value.

Yarjka wrote:While his writings are certainly critical of the church, his sources are generally well-researched and properly cited.

True. He is usually very thorough. In fact, given his usual standard of verifiability, I'm inclined to say that the lack of a source for this one makes it more suspect, not less.

Yarjka wrote:I've always been a bit angry at how the early Mormons were threatened and abused for their polygamy, especially when reading journals from the period that show very happy and loving families in a productive society. It's weird to see the church on the other side, breaking up the loving families.

That's because you're looking at it from the wrong angle. If the primary goal of the Church is to "create and sustain happy families" then perhaps preventing or breaking up gay couples could be construed as hypocritical in light of our polygamous past. But that isn't the primary goal of the Church. The primary goal of the Church is to "save souls by obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel." 'Happy families' can and will result from that, but happy families' isn't the goal; salvation is. Thus, when God commands us to practice polygamy, we must obey. Even if it makes some people/families unhappy. When God commands us not to, we stop. When God commands us not to practice homosexuality, we must obey. Even if it makes some people/families unhappy.

Perhaps you and I are using the word 'cruel' differently. To me, 'cruel' is like what they did to Matthew Shepherd. It is done out of hate or anger, for the sole purpose of causing misery. The Church is not motivated by hate, anger, or a need to inflict misery (though this may not be true for some individual members, unfortunately). The Church is motivated by a concern for the salvation of these individuals. Some people experience anguish and anxiety about joining the Church for other reasons--but they still have to, to be saved! For example, I taught the Gospel to several people who believed what we were telling them but they were raised Catholic. They didn't want to go through the pain and suffering that would come from the rejection by family, friends, and community that would necessarily come. Sure that was painful. Was it necessary? Yes. Was it cruel? Heavens no!

Yarjka wrote:Thankfully, there has been precedent of the Church changing what it defines as a serious sin...

Examples?

Yarjka wrote:I'll also ask him to get rid of excommunication while I'm at it.

Don't ask God to take away excommunication. Rather, ask Him to help those who are excommunicated to recognize it for what it is. It isn't a punishment, it's a release from their covenants. It isn't a curse, it's a mercy extended to those who are incurring His wrath by violating their covenants. It isn't kicking them out of the Celestial Kingdom--their sins did that. It isn't absolute--they can repent and come back. And also ask Him to help those who aren't excommunicated to recognize it for what it is. It's an opportunity for them to help those people return to the Church, not ostracize them. My sister-in-law was excommunicated a few years ago and it was absolutely the best thing that could've happened to her. First, because the things she continued doing while she was excommunicated were no longer in violation of sacred covenants. And second, because it helped her to see the error of her ways, to abandon her unacceptable practices and beliefs, and return to activity in the Church. That people misunderstand and misinterpret it is no reason to abandon such a wonderful and inspired procedure.

Damasta wrote:True. He is usually very thorough. In fact, given his usual standard of verifiability, I'm inclined to say that the lack of a source for this one makes it more suspect, not less.

I had mistakenly understood your earlier assertion of his excommunication as indicative of a biased attitude to not believe anything an ex-Mormon publishes. I see that you actually hold a high opinion of his scholarship, and I understand the concern for a lack of citation in this case.

Damasta wrote:Perhaps you and I are using the word 'cruel' differently. To me, 'cruel' is like what they did to Matthew Shepherd. It is done out of hate or anger, for the sole purpose of causing misery. The Church is not motivated by hate, anger, or a need to inflict misery (though this may not be true for some individual members, unfortunately). The Church is motivated by a concern for the salvation of these individuals. Some people experience anguish and anxiety about joining the Church for other reasons--but they still have to, to be saved! For example, I taught the Gospel to several people who believed what we were telling them but they were raised Catholic. They didn't want to go through the pain and suffering that would come from the rejection by family, friends, and community that would necessarily come. Sure that was painful. Was it necessary? Yes. Was it cruel? Heavens no!

Indeed we are using different definitions. Looking at the dictionary entry it looks like I've been working under the assumption of entry #4. That's also how I assume David O. McKay meant it in the quote that may or may not have been said by him. I certainly don't think that the church ever "willfully or knowingly causes pain or distress to others." But the actions of the church do cause pain and distress to others, especially in the potential case of breaking up families (or the actual cases of breaking up families in the polygamy article), but, like you point out, it's done in the name of eternal salvation.

Damasta wrote:

Yarjka wrote:Thankfully, there has been precedent of the Church changing what it defines as a serious sin...

Examples?

I was specifically thinking of the ban on the priesthood, in which case "being black" would be the sin (of course, this was never called a sin, but the mark of dark skin nonetheless had consequences, which were later removed, that were quite serious). This also prevented families from being together for eternity, which is quite cruel (using my definition). Polygamy (if you think back to a very early day in the church, prior to the practice of polygamy) was considered a serious sexual infraction, and something the church leaders denied practicing for that very reason. It not only became allowed, but actively promoted by the leaders of the church. Then it was again made into a serious sin (one of the most serious sins, since I believe it results in excommunication in the vast majority of cases). Other sins are harder to pin down as to the church's position, since they don't release a top ten list of sins each year or anything like that (and thank goodness for that).

Damasta wrote:

Yarjka wrote:I'll also ask him to get rid of excommunication while I'm at it.

Don't ask God to take away excommunication. Rather, ask Him to help those who are excommunicated to recognize it for what it is. It isn't a punishment, it's a release from their covenants. It isn't a curse, it's a mercy extended to those who are incurring His wrath by violating their covenants. It isn't kicking them out of the Celestial Kingdom--their sins did that. It isn't absolute--they can repent and come back. And also ask Him to help those who aren't excommunicated to recognize it for what it is. It's an opportunity for them to help those people return to the Church, not ostracize them. My sister-in-law was excommunicated a few years ago and it was absolutely the best thing that could've happened to her. First, because the things she continued doing while she was excommunicated were no longer in violation of sacred covenants. And second, because it helped her to see the error of her ways, to abandon her unacceptable practices and beliefs, and return to activity in the Church. That people misunderstand and misinterpret it is no reason to abandon such a wonderful and inspired procedure.

I'll accept that excommunication can be useful (in particular, I'm thinking of hardened criminals that might claim to be acting as a result of Mormon principles, which would tarnish the name of the church; sometimes distance is needed). I've also seen it used incorrectly (in my opinion) where it resulted in merely ostracizing the person from the community and not helping her return to full fellowship in any way, but rather leaving her completely alone. It was cruel. I think the excommunication process as it is currently set up lends itself to unnecessary cruelty, and changes could be made to help alleviate the problem.

I have been aware of the proceedings of several church disciplinary councils (note: they don't call them courts anymore), and have realized that, at least in the ones I've been aware of, excommunication is a last resort. However, this is the Lord's church, and the policies and procedures therein are set forth by, or at the very least approved of, Him. Ergo, when an individual not only disagrees with, but actively fights against, and refuse to follow those laws and regulations set forth, why would they want to stay in the church?

Christ said "Think not that I am come to send apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34). There are many who will be offended by the things the Lord does, or what he allows his church to do. And I'm sorry, but if an individual cannot swallow their pride enough to say, "I don't understand it, but I can accept that it is the Lord's will, and will follow it to the best of my ability" instead of "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong; I won't do it, and I will teach others not to do it either", then they really have no place here.

Damasta wrote:I'll accept that excommunication can be useful (in particular, I'm thinking of hardened criminals that might claim to be acting as a result of Mormon principles, which would tarnish the name of the church; sometimes distance is needed). I've also seen it used incorrectly (in my opinion) where it resulted in merely ostracizing the person from the community and not helping her return to full fellowship in any way, but rather leaving her completely alone. It was cruel. I think the excommunication process as it is currently set up lends itself to unnecessary cruelty, and changes could be made to help alleviate the problem.

That's very true. Given that the decision to proceed with a disciplinary council usually stems from local leaders, there is a greater chance that they choose to use their personal interpretation of when it should be used, rather than follow the promptings of the Spirit. It's sad, but true. However, it seems that some fault also lies with the members of the community who ostracized the person. I think that sometimes it is intentional and judgmental. But I think that sometimes it is also due to uncertainty. Since the Church doesn't advertise the reasons why someone is excommunicated (and rightly so), it's difficult to know how they'll react if you go visit them. If they had friends before and those friends shun them, then those friends are accountable. But if they had few friends in the Church to begin with, then members who don't know them may hesitate to meet them. Most of the excommunicants I've met were angry and belligerent. Talking to them just exacerbates them--a situation I'd rather avoid. Unfortunately that means I might be timid about visiting an excommunicated person, even though I don't judge them or disdain them.

But I still think that the solution is to ask God to help us change our hearts (and help the excommunicants change theirs, too), not eradicating the procedure. I should be brave enough to go visit them regardless of their anger. And they should be contrite enough to seek to know God's will and repent.

Ex-communication is designed for the recalcitrant sinner. Every single member who is excommunicated, is excommunicated because they refuse to give up either their beliefs that are in discord with revealed doctrine, or their behavior that isn't in line with revealed truth. But Damasta brings up a good point, I think far more important than trying to change the revealed manner in which these proceedings are done, it would be best to try and find a Christ-like manner to treat those individuals who have had to go through such a difficult process.

Marduk wrote:Ex-communication is designed for the recalcitrant sinner. Every single member who is excommunicated, is excommunicated because they refuse to give up either their beliefs that are in discord with revealed doctrine, or their behavior that isn't in line with revealed truth. But Damasta brings up a good point, I think far more important than trying to change the revealed manner in which these proceedings are done, it would be best to try and find a Christ-like manner to treat those individuals who have had to go through such a difficult process.

Sometimes the nature of the sin is of such a scale (perhaps very public) that excommunication occurs even with a fully penitent person. Of course, the details as to the reasons for an excommunication usually remain private, so it is hard to speculate on these matters, and we probably shouldn't. I think we are on dangerous ground if we label all excommunicated persons as recalcitrant sinners.

This is a very good point about helping these excommunicated individuals go through the difficult process, and it is a very hard thing to do. If this were easier I probably wouldn't see excommunication as being so cruel.