Presbyterian Church in Ireland policy on SSM almost like ours.

[jpv]

On 7/6/2018 at 10:35 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if our policy influenced theirs in any way. If it did, it makes me even more sad.

I doubt it. My understanding was that it came from Kirton McConkie recognizing that California courts were beginning to allow third party liability for parental alienation suits.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You are absolutely correct that the human sexual response, especially in males, is very shapeable. That response can be grossly distorted from God's intended purposes.

And I think that there is much more than that going on between most same sex couples. While it may be hard for you to accept or understand, I can testify that many gay and lesbian couple share genuine love. They are also fully capable of loving and parenting children---often much better than many biological parents. 

From my perspective, it's one thing to believe that same-sex relationships are not compatible with the nature of spirits and will not exist in the after life.  I think it's even okay to believe that same-sex relationships are not the best environment for raising children. 

But it's not only unhelpful, it's also wrong to vilify or mischaracterize those relationships. I'm one of the first to push back against those who criticize the Church or push for greater normalization of same-sex relationships. And at the same time, I have to acknowledge the truth that homosexuality is real and much more complicated than you are portraying. Let's disagree without being disagreeable. 

 

Out of points, but must applaud.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, jpv said:

I doubt it. My understanding was that it came from Kirton McConkie recognizing that California courts were beginning to allow third party liability for parental alienation suits.

And yet it is identical to an almost century old policy for polygamous families.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And yet it is identical to an almost century old policy for polygamous families.

A twofer, giving us two very good and legitimate reasons for adopting the policy.

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You are absolutely correct that the human sexual response, especially in males, is very shapeable. That response can be grossly distorted from God's intended purposes.

And I think that there is much more than that going on between most same sex couples. While it may be hard for you to accept or understand, I can testify that many gay and lesbian couple share genuine love. They are also fully capable of loving and parenting children---often much better than many biological parents. 

From my perspective, it's one thing to believe that same-sex relationships are not compatible with the nature of spirits and will not exist in the after life.  I think it's even okay to believe that same-sex relationships are not the best environment for raising children. 

But it's not only unhelpful, it's also wrong to vilify or mischaracterize those relationships. I'm one of the first to push back against those who criticize the Church or push for greater normalization of same-sex relationships. And at the same time, I have to acknowledge the truth that homosexuality is real and much more complicated than you are portraying. Let's disagree without being disagreeable. 

5

Klindley, I don't think I have stated that gay individuals cannot love or that their love is somehow not real or genuine. My point is that simply because two individuals love each other, that love does not excuse the wide range of problems with same-sex relationships. 

I don't disagree with you on the complexity of homosexual relationships - I think they are significantly complex and multifaceted. However, complexity also does not validate their existence. If a relationship is aberrant does it become normalized because of complexity or because individuals are "in love"?  

I think for too long now our entire society and culture have been forced to worship at the golden calf of homosexuality. The media and the courts have crammed it down the throats of American society without any checks or balance.  I also think it is past time for people to be much more direct and blunt in the spiritual status of such choices.  The wages of sin lead to death.  Homosexuality does not get a pass simply because the Elite direct society to accept it or be punished with societal death. 

You mentioned something that I would like to introduce - has any study of homosexual parents or families concluded they are healthy for the children? I have read a few of the negative studies, but I don't attempt to focus on this topic and I am sure there are others here that have.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

WOW!!!

How could a mind become so twisted and loose so much humanity is beyond me.  There is not a single thing you wrote that could not also be written about heterosexual relationships.  Yet I would NEVER condemn all straight couples nor their marriages in any remote way that you have done here.

I hope you at some point find some charity and understanding for others that are not exactly like you are.  This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I hope you reconsider couching your scorn in His teachings.

1

Cal, there is a world of difference between the sinner and the sin. I think you have conflated what I have stated and taken it personally rather than an attack on the sin itself.  I ask you a question - should sin never be acknowledged?  Did Jesus ever teach that sin was unimportant?  When should we look the other way when it comes to sin?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

You mentioned something that I would like to introduce - has any study of homosexual parents or families concluded they are healthy for the children? I have read a few of the negative studies, but I don't attempt to focus on this topic and I am sure there are others here that have.

A number of them show no difference.

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, there is a world of difference between the sinner and the sin. I think you have conflated what I have stated and taken it personally rather than an attack on the sin itself.  I ask you a question - should sin never be acknowledged?  Did Jesus ever teach that sin was unimportant?  When should we look the other way when it comes to sin?

The only sin that we need to acknowledge is our own. The only sin that Christ taught that was important was our own.  THAT is the teachings of Christ.  Judging others and how sinful they are is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by california boy

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So when science makes it possible to alter one of the gametes to opposite sex or to clone, will same sex couples then be able to be called "parents" in your view since they would be the only ones supplying biological material?

No, I think that would be an abomination. I think that is the sort of technological meddling that is in direct opposition to the doctrines and principles of the Proclamation.

Gay marriage is similar. Just because the state now recognizes it does not make it "legal and lawful" within the Church. Similarly, if we are ever able to make ova from sperm or vice versa or use human cloning to enable gay parents to make children from both of their DNA, I think this is an absolute abomination. So, no, simply being enabled by modern tech to do it does not clear my hurdle. I believe, along with the Church, that gender and gender roles are divinely appointed and stem from individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Man's attempts to override this are an abomination. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't disagree.

I just find the insistence that biology is the qualifier for parenthood problematic and am addressing that argument alone.

Argue covenant, social science, etc. for family structure...no problem with that, imo.  Argue solely biology, big problem, imo, and one that will leave its proponents with nothing to support their stance when science removes that obstacle for biological parenthood for same sex couples.

Argumentatively (meaning in arguments/debates) equating biological parenthood with the raising of children is problematic, imo, as it can in extreme equate a rapist whose victim chooses to have the child with parents who plan to have children wisely and then raise them with loving care and are there for them throughout their children's lives until their own deaths.

If one wants to say currently same sex couples cannot both be biological parents of their children, say that, but that is only one aspect of parenthood which can have an impact on family dynamics (biological parents raising their children are generally less likely to be abusive, iirc, for example).  There are many others involved in primary caretaking of children and thus that one is not inherently disqualifying, imo.

Absolutely.

And I agree that deconstructing the marriage covenant in terms of biology (and any of the other various secular disciplines) is problematic since these are bound to change as our fund of knowledge in these areas increases (knowledge which is advanced by the financial support and priorities of the powers that be, by the way!). As you pointed out, there are increasingly many scientifically and socially justifiable ways to become a parent and to parent, and there has also been the removal of so many obstacles (moral and social constraints) to people doing pretty much what they want a la Alma 18:5.

It was only 25 years ago that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child agreed that “(Article 7.1.) The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” Parent (and soon birth) has taken on a new meaning in just that many years.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, I think that would be an abomination. I think that is the sort of technological meddling that is in direct opposition to the doctrines and principles of the Proclamation.

Gay marriage is similar. Just because the state now recognizes it does not make it "legal and lawful" within the Church. Similarly, if we are ever able to make ova from sperm or vice versa or use human cloning to enable gay parents to make children from both of their DNA, I think this is an absolute abomination. So, no, simply being enabled by modern tech to do it does not clear my hurdle. I believe, along with the Church, that gender and gender roles are divinely appointed and stem from individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Man's attempts to override this are an abomination. 

I think the idea of "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" hits the nail on eh head as to the structure of the marriage covenant. And while I think all life is sacred, it can be abominably-generated when accomplished outside of divinely commanded means, which I take to be quite liberal both technologically and culturally speaking. As far as I can tell, only two criteria exist: two genders for the parents (however they become parents, assuming it is moral and ethical; the procreative processes and techniques are immaterial, especially in adoption) and the legitimacy of their relationship according to their culture ("lawfully wedded").

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

No, I think that would be an abomination. I think that is the sort of technological meddling that is in direct opposition to the doctrines and principles of the Proclamation.

Gay marriage is similar. Just because the state now recognizes it does not make it "legal and lawful" within the Church. Similarly, if we are ever able to make ova from sperm or vice versa or use human cloning to enable gay parents to make children from both of their DNA, I think this is an absolute abomination. So, no, simply being enabled by modern tech to do it does not clear my hurdle. I believe, along with the Church, that gender and gender roles are divinely appointed and stem from individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Man's attempts to override this are an abomination. 

That is not a biology argument though.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The only sin that we need to acknowledge is our own. The only sin that Christ taught that was important was our own.  THAT is the teachings of Christ.  Judging others and how sinful they are is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

The Bishop does this to some degree as he sits in judgment on a member, but I think for the rest of us members you are right about this.  However,  considering the direction the world is moving in, I am wondering if God is thinking about doing something like he did before.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The only sin that we need to acknowledge is our own. The only sin that Christ taught that was important was our own.  THAT is the teachings of Christ.  Judging others and how sinful they are is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I think this is patently false based on the scriptural record of prophets and disciples of God and Jesus Christ. There was a consistent record of defining what is a sin, the condemnation of sin, and the calling of all sinners to repentance.  What scripture are you referring to that states that Jesus taught that the only important sin was one's own?

You are again conflating the conversation into a condemnation of a person rather than the sin itself. I have a consistent record of defining each of us as a sinner so everyone here is in the same boat when it comes to the need for repentance. THAT is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Science may have something to say about that soon.  It might not be currently possible, but you might be surprised how big the realm of possibility is.

How can we solve *all* of humanity's problems in a single generation? Kill all the women.

Follow up: can't say kill all the men because if we did, the women would probably figure a way to reproduce without us males. ☺

[JAHS]

53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think this is patently false based on the scriptural record of prophets and disciples of God and Jesus Christ. There was a consistent record of defining what is a sin, the condemnation of sin, and the calling of all sinners to repentance.  What scripture are you referring to that states that Jesus taught that the only important sin was one's own?

You are again conflating the conversation into a condemnation of a person rather than the sin itself. I have a consistent record of defining each of us as a sinner so everyone here is in the same boat when it comes to the need for repentance. THAT is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

There's nothing wrong wth calling sin for what it is, and generally speaking we are told to call on everyone to repent because like you said we are all sinners. I think Cal is talking about how wrong for us to pass a final judgment on individual people.
There are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles. It is us making final judgments on others that is wrong. We cannot tell someone they are going to Hell because of their sin; only God can do that.

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet it is identical to an almost century old policy for polygamous families.

I thought they were similar,  but different in some respects.  Does the current iteration of the policy for polygamous families say anything about withholding names and blessings.... or that the child must be 18? 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I thought they were similar,  but different in some respects.  Does the current iteration of the policy for polygamous families say anything about withholding names and blessings.... or that the child must be 18? 

The child must be 18, don't know about name blessings, but likely the same rule because that creates a membership record, which means assigned ministering teachers, etc...all the same issues as would occur in a same sex parents family.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

That is not a biology argument though.

I'm not arguing from strictly biology. Merely pointing out that untampered with biology supports God's default setting. Yes, some biological tampering is permissible within heterosexual couples (fertility treatments, for example), but even then the couple is within their legal and lawful rights (from a gospel perspective). 

In the end, biology is a tangent to my argument in support of the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation.  

[cacheman]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

The child must be 18, don't know about name blessings, but likely the same rule because that creates a membership record, which means assigned ministering teachers, etc...all the same issues as would occur in a same sex parents family.

I don't believe any of the versions mentioned names and blessings.... Maybe it's implied, but it's not specifically talked about.   The 2010 version however,  allows an exception in the case where "minor children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced." Maybe the policy has been updated again since 2010. 

I don't know if there's any signification to these differences, but I think they're worth noting. 

http://kutv.com/news/local/timeline-of-lds-churchs-handbook-of-instructions

 Another interesting change.....Apparently,  1st presidency approval was not required until maybe as late as 1998.

 

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

The only sin that we need to acknowledge is our own. The only sin that Christ taught that was important was our own.  THAT is the teachings of Christ.  Judging others and how sinful they are is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would agree.  At the same time however we should not encourage people to sin or give them a green light to sin.  If my son comes to me and says "Dad, I want to be a drug dealer."  I am not going to say "It is your choice, I will not judge."  I am going to give him some judgement on that decision.  He can use his agency as he chooses but I am not going to give him my blessing on it.

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

A number of them show no difference.

I'll go one further. 

Logically, I would expect homosexual parents to be much better than the average heterosexual parents.

The reason is this.  Right now, there is no limitations on which heterosexual couples can have children.  It's a simple (and heavily compulsive) physical act that can be performed between any post-pubescent man and woman.  It's free, and if done correctly, relatively painless.

Homosexual couples, on the other hand, have the biological difficulties mentioned elsewhere in this thread.  So it's very difficult for them to have kids join their family (either as a single parent or a couple).  In order for them to have a child join their family, a great amount of some combination of time, effort and money must be expended.  And in cases like adoption or surrogacy, there is probably a good deal of third-party evaluation and oversight into their situation.  In short, there are no accidental teen homosexual pregnancies.  There are no birth control failures.  No drunken mistakes.

The system isn't perfect, but there's a lot more thought going into every homosexual family than heterosexual family.

Edited July 8, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think this is patently false based on the scriptural record of prophets and disciples of God and Jesus Christ. There was a consistent record of defining what is a sin, the condemnation of sin, and the calling of all sinners to repentance.  What scripture are you referring to that states that Jesus taught that the only important sin was one's own?

You are again conflating the conversation into a condemnation of a person rather than the sin itself. I have a consistent record of defining each of us as a sinner so everyone here is in the same boat when it comes to the need for repentance. THAT is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Ok, it seems you are determined to be chosen as the one that gets to decide what is sin and what is not.  So I will let you be the one to decide.

I have some very good friends who biologically were unable to have any childruen.  They decided to adopt.  Maggie was a beautiful baby zgirl, just what they hoped to adopt.  After careful consideration, they applied to adopt her.  But in the process, they were told that Maggie had an older brother.  He was a bit of a handful, angry that his biological parents had abandoned him.  But he also needed a loving home. Would they please consider taking both siblings, keeping them together and adopting Trevor as well.  It was not what they were expecting, but their hearts were deeply touched and they agreed to adopt the two siblings.

About 5 years later, they were thinking that perhaps they would like to adopt one more child to complete their (as you would put it) "family".  They talked to Maggie and Trevor about their plan.  All agreed that would wonderful.  So my friends went back to the adoption agency and applied to adopt again.  The agency looked over their history and noticed that before they were willing to adopt siblings.  Then they told my friends that they actually had 4 siblings.  None were cute new born babies.  All under 10.  But they needed good parents to raise them.  Wow, my friends were not expecting that.  They didn't even have room in their house for 4 more kids.  But their hearts were touched and they agreed to adopt them all.  I am not going to say that this adoption has been easy.  It hasn't. There was some resentment from the two older kids for having so many brothers and sisters, now demanding the resources of the family.  But they are making it work.

So, good master, who has sinned?  The biological parents who abandoned their children or the couple who were unable to have children who wanted a family enough to take on this responsibility and give these kids a loving home.  You want to be the judge?  Go ahead and judge them.  Condemn who you will.  And show us why it is important to judge these families as harshly as you have in defending your position that these families need to be judged by someone and you are the one to do it.

Let us be perfectly clear when making the kind of judgements that you have been making against gay families and straight families that are unable to have "real children".  What you have so clearly condemned them for in not being able to have their own biological children is actually what they should be praised for the most.  These parents are NOT ripping children out of the arms of loving biological parents.  These couples are raising children that have been abandoned, thrown aside, cast off as being just too inconvenient in their biological parents lives.  And you want to castigate the couples that are raising these children?  And you want to make that judgement a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Tell me, wise master,  who has sinned?.  Who deserves the prejudice you have showed towards these families?  Who do you judge as worthy parents?  What sin do you want to condemn here?  Should your condemnation be directed at the biological parents, or those who take in these unwanted cast off children?  Judge the sin here.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree.  At the same time however we should not encourage people to sin or give them a green light to sin.  If my son comes to me and says "Dad, I want to be a drug dealer."  I am not going to say "It is your choice, I will not judge."  I am going to give him some judgement on that decision.  He can use his agency as he chooses but I am not going to give him my blessing on it.

And I agree with you.  But what is the sin StormRider is condemning here?  The biological parents who have abandoned their child conceived in the back of Chevy van on a drunken night?  Or the couple that takes that child into their homes and tries to give that child all the love and care that they can possibly give?  No gay couple have EVER been able to rip a child from the arms of loving biological parents.  Is StormRider right?  Should society scorn these gay couples for their sin of adopting these children?

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Ok, it seems you are determined to be chosen as the one that gets to decide what is sin and what is not.  So I will let you be the one to decide.

I have some very good friends who biologically were unable to have any childruen.  They decided to adopt.  Maggie was a beautiful baby zgirl, just what they hoped to adopt.  After careful consideration, they applied to adopt her.  But in the process, they were told that Maggie had an older brother.  He was a bit of a handful, angry that his biological parents had abandoned him.  But he also needed a loving home. Would they please consider taking both siblings, keeping them together and adopting Trevor as well.  It was not what they were expecting, but their hearts were deeply touched and they agreed to adopt the two siblings.

About 5 years later, they were thinking that perhaps they would like to adopt one more child to complete their (as you would put it) "family".  They talked to Maggie and Trevor about their plan.  All agreed that would wonderful.  So my friends went back to the adoption agency and applied to adopt again.  The agency looked over their history and noticed that before they were willing to adopt siblings.  Then they told my friends that they actually had 4 siblings.  None were cute new born babies.  All under 10.  But they needed good parents to raise them.  Wow, my friends were not expecting that.  They didn't even have room in their house for 4 more kids.  But their hearts were touched and they agreed to adopt them all.  I am not going to say that this adoption has been easy.  It hasn't. There was some resentment from the two older kids for having so many brothers and sisters, now demanding the resources of the family.  But they are making it work.

So, good master, who has sinned?  The biological parents who abandoned their children or the couple who were unable to have children who wanted a family enough to take on this responsibility and give these kids a loving home.  You want to be the judge?  Go ahead and judge them.  Condemn who you will.  And show us why it is important to judge these families as harshly as you have in defending your position that these families need to be judged by someone and you are the one to do it.

Let us be perfectly clear when making the kind of judgements that you have been making against gay families and straight families that are unable to have "real children".  What you have so clearly condemned them for in not being able to have their own biological children is actually what they should be praised for the most.  These parents are NOT ripping children out of the arms of loving biological parents.  These couples are raising children that have been abandoned, thrown aside, cast off as being just too inconvenient in their biological parents lives.  And you want to castigate the couples that are raising these children?  And you want to make that judgement a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Tell me, wise master,  who has sinned?.  Who deserves the prejudice you have showed towards these families?  Who do you judge as worthy parents?  What sin do you want to condemn here?  Should your condemnation be directed at the biological parents, or those who take in these unwanted cast off children?  Judge the sin here.

10

8

Cal, have I ever said that parenting children is a sin? CFR

I have never intended to say nor have I attempted to insinuate it. This is a red herring and has nothing to do with what I have stated previously in this thread or anywhere else. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Storm Rider