Jump to content
Rivers

Tyler Glenn is at it again

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All true.  Also true that you can ignore the ramifications of the rest of what I wrote.

Nobody is ignoring the ramifications.  It is the source of those ramifications that is in question.
 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If it did anything it drew a very clear line for the activists.  The Church will remain open to all, but there are boundaries that must be observed and/or respected.  It also provided an opportunity for activists to choose - they will either follow Christ or not.  Those involved have chosen while for the rest there was no choice.

The teachings of Christ are available for all to read. While Christ is silent on homosexuality, Christ seems explicit about "suffering the children to come unto me." The November policy is counter-Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Gray said:

The teachings of Christ are available for all to read. While Christ is silent on homosexuality, Christ seems explicit about "suffering the children to come unto me." The November policy is counter-Christ.

The November policy doesn't prohibit any children from coming into Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The November policy doesn't prohibit any children from coming into Christ.

True.  If they have gay parents, the children can still come to Christ.  They just can't do it as part of the LDS Church.  Fortunately. there are other churches who do welcome them. 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

True.  If they have gay parents, the children can still come to Christ.  They just can't do it as part of the LDS Church.  Fortunately. there are other churches who do welcome them.

They can do it as part of the LDS Church as soon as they turn 18.
They can also attend the LDS Church without being baptized.  No need for another Church since any baptism there would be as ineffective as not having one.
They would be no more "coming to Christ" to attend another Church than they would be to attend the LDS Church with a temporary delay on baptism.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They can do it as part of the LDS Church as soon as they turn 18.
They can also attend the LDS Church without being baptized.  No need for another Church since any baptism there would be as ineffective as not having one.
They would be no more "coming to Christ" to attend another Church than they would be to attend the LDS Church with a temporary delay on baptism.

The question I was responding to referred to "children".  After they turn 18 and disavow their parents', they are no longer children.

Regarding attendance at our church, Elder Christofferson on Nov 6 said that attending church meetings is "likely not an appropriate thing" for children of gay parents.

Here's the quote:  "It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple."

I wonder how many children, shunned by the Church in their youth will decide to disavow their parents in adulthood and come back.  I'm guessing that nearly all will choose another religious affiliation or no religious affiliation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

The November policy doesn't prohibit any children from coming into Christ.

If does if you think that baptism and membership in the LDS church are in any way important in coming unto Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Before the policy, there seemed to be a change in the atmosphere that the church was going to be more inclusive, but that changed.

For good or bad, i think this was part of the reason for the policy change.  I think, and as you've stated as well, that people were starting to feel like the church was moving towards eventual acceptance of SSM and actively (for lack of a better term) gay members.  The policy re-drew some lines in the sand that those people had previously thought were starting to fade.

But I don't think the policy was really anything new.  Just newly worded, maybe?  

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here's the quote:  "It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple."

It seems kind of like a given to me, that it would be inappropriate to put kids in a class where the authority figure was actively teaching that their family unit was unacceptable to God and that the only way for it to become acceptable was for the family to break up.

Do you think it would be appropriate to put little kids in that kind of environment?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For good or bad, i think this was part of the reason for the policy change.  I think, and as you've stated as well, that people were starting to feel like the church was moving towards eventual acceptance of SSM and actively (for lack of a better term) gay members.  The policy re-drew some lines in the sand that those people had previously thought were starting to fade.

But I don't think the policy was really anything new.  Just newly worded, maybe?  

Considering a gay relationship to be a sin worthy of excommunication = not new.

Determining gay marriage to be apostasy = new.

Blanket prohibition of baptizing children of gay parents = new.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Considering a gay relationship to be a sin worthy of excommunication = not new.

Determining gay marriage to be apostasy = new.

Blanket prohibition of baptizing children of gay parents = new.

If SSM has always been worthy of excommunication, what were they excommunicated for?  Fornication?

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems kind of like a given to me, that it would be inappropriate to put kids in a class where the authority figure was actively teaching that their family unit was unacceptable to God and that the only way for it to become acceptable was for the family to break up.

Do you think it would be appropriate to put little kids in that kind of environment?  

Yes, that's the whole point of the policy, right?  Protect the kids from being told that their family is "counterfeit".  So JHLPROF is correct that the children of gay parents "can" attend church but the policy and and apostle are on record saying that it is not appropriate.

I get the logic.  I just find the situation to be disheartening.  I know a number of people who sent in their resignation letters after the policy.  I thought about it but chose not to.  It was however, a pretty deep cut in whatever emotional ties I have left with the institutional church.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If SSM has always been worthy of excommunication, what were they excommunicated for?  Fornication?

SSM wasn't mentioned previously in the handbook.  When the last version of the handbook was published, legally recognized gay marriage had not become as widespread.

The latest revision added same-gender marriage to the list of definitions of Apostasy.  And Apostasy requires church discipline.

The section that could have been cited, prior to Nov 2015, as a rationale for excommunicating a gay married couple was section 6.7.2 which lists the reasons that church discipline MAY be necessary.  Among those reasons the following was, and still is, listed:  "homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)".

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

SSM wasn't mentioned previously in the handbook.  When the last version of the handbook was published, legally recognized gay marriage had not become as widespread.

The latest revision added same-gender marriage to the list of definitions of Apostasy.  And Apostasy requires church discipline.

The section that could have been cited, prior to Nov 2015, as a rationale for excommunicating a gay married couple was section 6.7.2 which lists the reasons that church discipline MAY be necessary.  Among those reasons the following was, and still is, listed:  "homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)".

So it sounds like the difference was that those involved with SSM had to have a court convened where before that didn't have to happen, even though it still wasn't acceptable.  Am i understanding it correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, that's the whole point of the policy, right?  Protect the kids from being told that their family is "counterfeit".  So JHLPROF is correct that the children of gay parents "can" attend church but the policy and and apostle are on record saying that it is not appropriate.

I get the logic.  I just find the situation to be disheartening.  I know a number of people who sent in their resignation letters after the policy.  I thought about it but chose not to.  It was however, a pretty deep cut in whatever emotional ties I have left with the institutional church.

I get that and i do sympathize greatly with you.  Can i ask what the disheartening part was?  Were you one of those who did feel like the church was on it's way to softening its stance so the realization that it wasn't was disheartening, or was it something else?

I just think that it's important to acknowledge why Elder C. said what he said about it being inappropriate for these kids to be present at church.  So many put that statement out there as if he's saying that the church doesn't want them there.  To use your words-as if the church is shunning these kids.  But it sounds like even you agree that the church's motive (which is a logical one) is to protect the kids from emotional trauma while still honoring it's doctrine.  

I know speaking as a mom that there's no way i would ever put my kids in a situation where they were being taught that the foundation of their home and family was a sin.  It's way too confusing for kids, it would just be mean to do that to them.  I can understand other parents disagreeing with my conclusions but it wouldn't be fair to paint my motives as less than reasonable and from a position of caring about my children.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it sounds like the difference was that those involved with SSM had to have a court convened where before that didn't have to happen, even though it still wasn't acceptable.  Am i understanding it correctly?

Yeah -- I think you've got it correct.

To further clarify:  the section on church discipline is divided into three sub-sections.  (This is one that I'm very familiar with because we study it thoroughly prior to convening a disciplinary council.)  The three sections cover when NOT to hold a disciplinary council, when you MAY need to hold a DC, and when you MUST hold a DC.

In the MAY category is "Serious Transgression" which includes homosexual relations and cohabitation.  Prior to last November, that was really the only reference to homosexuality in the DC section.

The MUST section includes Apostasy as a reason that you MUST hold a DC.  And apostasy is defined by a list of items.  Prior to November, there were no references to homosexuality or gay marriage on that list.  In November, "Being in a same-gender marriage" was added to the list of definitions of Apostasy.

Like I said, I think you already had the gist of it but there's some more detail for you.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that and i do sympathize greatly with you.  Can i ask what the disheartening part was?  Were you one of those who did feel like the church was on it's way to softening its stance so the realization that it wasn't was disheartening, or was it something else?

I just think that it's important to acknowledge why Elder C. said what he said about it being inappropriate for these kids to be present at church.  So many put that statement out there as if he's saying that the church doesn't want them there.  To use your words-as if the church is shunning these kids.  But it sounds like even you agree that the church's motive (which is a logical one) is to protect the kids from emotional trauma while still honoring it's doctrine.  

I know speaking as a mom that there's no way i would ever put my kids in a situation where they were being taught that the foundation of their home and family was a sin.  It's way too confusing for kids, it would just be mean to do that to them.  I can understand other parents disagreeing with my conclusions but it wouldn't be fair to paint my motives as less than reasonable and from a position of caring about my children.

I get the rationale, just said that we feel our doctrine requires that we make kids potentially feel that way.

If I had a gay child or one of my kids comes out as gay, I would/will stop attending.

I also believe that the church was, and still is, on a path of more acceptance of LGBT members.  Not just socially/culturally but even doctrinally.  This hiccup notwithstanding.  I'm looking at the MormonsandGays website and their change of heart with respect to non-discrimination ordinances.

But I certainly understand and empathize with those who left because what the church had done was a step too far away from what they believe Christ would want.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Considering a gay relationship to be a sin worthy of excommunication = not new.  YES

Determining gay marriage to be apostasy = new.  NO

Blanket prohibition of baptizing children of gay parents = new.  YES

Gay marriage is no different than a gay relationship outside of marriage.  Both are sins worthy of excommunication and both go against the teachings of the Church and are therefore apostasy.
Pretending that there is any distinction might be where the confusion is coming from.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Gay marriage is no different than a gay relationship outside of marriage.  Both are sins worthy of excommunication and both go against the teachings of the Church and are therefore apostasy.
Pretending that there is any distinction might be where the confusion is coming from.

That's not true per the handbook.  I've cited the language in my post to Bluebell (just a couple posts up).  Apostasy is defined by the handbook and includes gay marriage as one of the definitions.  Homosexual relations including sexual cohabitation fall into a different section in which discipline is not necessarily required.

You are welcome to your personal beliefs, but what I've described above is the actual policy of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

SSM wasn't mentioned previously in the handbook.  When the last version of the handbook was published, legally recognized gay marriage had not become as widespread.

The latest revision added same-gender marriage to the list of definitions of Apostasy.  And Apostasy requires church discipline.

The section that could have been cited, prior to Nov 2015, as a rationale for excommunicating a gay married couple was section 6.7.2 which lists the reasons that church discipline MAY be necessary.  Among those reasons the following was, and still is, listed:  "homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)".

And the difference between cohabitation and marriage is one can be walked away from and the other involves a covenant/contractual relationship, thus is an ongoing sin...not something that can be truly repented of without a divorce.

Discipline, rather than excommunication, for a serious sexual sin usually takes place in the presence of sincere repentance. If someone is committing adultery and states they have no intention to stop committing adultery and in fact, as soon as the council is over with, they intend to go be with their adulterous partner, do you think there would be any hesitation to excommunicate?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And the difference between cohabitation and marriage is one can be walked away from and the other involves a covenant/contractual relationship, thus is an ongoing sin...not something that can be truly repented of without a divorce.

Discipline, rather than excommunication, for a serious sexual sin usually takes place in the presence of sincere repentance. If someone is committing adultery and states they have no intention to stop committing adultery and in fact, as soon as the council is over with, they intend to go be with their adulterous partner, do you think there would be any hesitation to excommunicate?

For cohabitation it is permissible to not hold a council.  And I've seen that choice be made by a bishop.  Whereas a gay marriage doesn't give the bishop/SP a choice. 

As for your second point, which is valid, I've learned not to predict outcomes of disciplinary councils.  I know that what you are describing seems clear cut but once you are in that room and the spirit prevails... I've been surprised at the outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

For cohabitation it is permissible to not hold a council.  And I've seen that choice be made by a bishop.  Whereas a gay marriage doesn't give the bishop/SP a choice.

Could be worse - Leviticus 20:13.

Even with the fulfillment of the law of Moses in Christ the opinion of Heavenly Father seems pretty clear.  Certainly makes a disciplinary council seem a small price to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Could be worse - Leviticus 20:13.

Even with the fulfillment of the law of Moses in Christ the opinion of Heavenly Father seems pretty clear.  Certainly makes a disciplinary council seem a small price to pay.

I'm so sorry that Lev 20 represents the God you believe in. 

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm so sorry that Lev 20 represents the God you believe in. 

I'm so sorry that you can't see the principle behind the law.

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted, changed mind.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...