Jump to content
PacMan

Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.  But, this topic has already been discussed to death on this forum (the policy) and members either believe it's a good policy or they believe it's not a good policy.  As far as I can tell, no one here is going to change their mind about it either.  So do you have something specific you want to discuss about it?  I can search and post some past threads and discussions regarding this policy, if you're interested in reading through them.

As far as the policy, I personally think it's an awful policy for our church to have.  My Bishop agrees with me and so does my Stake President....and most every other member I've ever discussed it with privately.  Of course none of us speak out against it at church and like most, are just pretty silent about it.  I know many hope it'll be withdrawn, but I personally believe that will be years away and not until a younger generation is in leadership.

One of the main problems with the policy is that (at least for me), every reason given could also be applied to any other family where the parents are "living in sin".  Their kids are also going to learn at church about the sins of their parents and so on.  But they are allowed to be baptized, receive the Priesthood and advance in the Priesthood.  There's no way this policy can be explained to me that doesn't still ring of blatant discrimination.  I know the polygamy policy is always brought up as a defense...well, maybe that one should be changed as well.  There are all types of situations where kids have been disowned by their parents when the kids have decided to join the church and yet missionaries still baptize them.

All reasons for the policy simply fall apart when they are really analyzed and compared to other situations, IMO.

So, that's my opinion (already expressed in the threads I mentioned above too :) )

The issue is whether or not the church should put itself between a child and his or her family structure--particularly when the child can't do anything about it.  That hasn't been addressed.  I think there's reason to think the policy is good for this reason.  For being focused on the family, the church is wise to avoid making a child effectively renounce his or her family structure at such a tender age.  I think it's very responsible, and it's something Bill and just about everyone else has failed to even address.

And no, as I've repeatedly noted, this reason cannot be applied "to any other family where the parents are 'living in sin.'"  Even if not married, the structure of having a mom and dad is still present.  A child can still have these parents in the eternities.  That's not so for gays and polygamists.  A child that presently has 2+ moms or 2+ dads will never have them in the eternities.

It's one thing for a child to encourage his mom and dad to get married so that they can have an eternal family.  It's another for a child to realize that he has no hope of an eternal family with two people s/he call parents.  The 2015 policy removes a tender child from needing to grapple with this reality. 

For crying out loud, how is this not the empathetic thing to do?  How does the 2015 policy not decrease the stress, confusion, anxiety, and vulnerability of a child by removing very difficult questions that a child should not be required to answer.  How does the 2015 policy not support such a child's family?  Truly, after recovering from my own horror of the optics of it all, I cannot understand why people are against it.  Because at its foundation, it makes a lot of sense.

Edited by PacMan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I recall, the first leaked version of the policy didn't seem so much concerned with protecting children from family conflict as it was quarantining wards against gay people or sympathy for gay people. The original policy:

"Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be  baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1.
 
The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2.
 
The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

 

Under the terms of the original policy that was leaked, if  you have a parent who was EVER in a sex same relationship, you would not be eligible for baptism. It's like they were afraid that straight kids would be tainted by association and wanted to keep them out of wards. This is simply not compatible with the later explanation that the policy was done to "protect" children, as the policy would apply even if your parents were no longer in any same sex relationship and were living in harmony with church teachings.

That's all true.  The policy has already been changed since the original policy.  Let's hope there will be more change and it'll eventually end up being deleted from the handbook completely!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, PacMan said:

 

And no, as I've repeatedly noted, this reason cannot be applied "to any other family where the parents are 'living in sin.'"  Even if not married, the structure of having a mom and dad is still present.  A child can still have these parents in the eternities.  That's not so for gays and polygamists.  A child that presently has 2+ moms or 2+ dads will not have them in the eternities.  It is the family structure that is the problem and not simply the moral decisions of adults.

 

I kinda feel like the mormon church believes there will be plenty of polygamist families together in the eternities.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Traela said:

Apples and oranges.  Parents who are shacking up can get married. 

So can parents who are gay.

12 hours ago, Traela said:

 But just like polygamous parents, there is simply no way for a gay couple to adhere to Church standards without breaking up the family

How does a couple getting married (gay or not) break up the family?  That makes absolutely no sense!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, PacMan said:

The issue is whether or not the church should put itself between a child and his or her family structure--particularly when the child can't do anything about it.  That hasn't been addressed.  I think there's reason to think the policy is good for this reason.  For being focused on the family, the church is wise to avoid making a child effectively renounce his or her family structure at such a tender age.

What can a child do who is living in a home where the parents are "shacking up"?  Where parents are drinking"  Where parents are doing drugs?  Once again, your reasoning falls apart completely here.  Why wouldn't a child have to renounce their family structure at a tender age if their parents were living in sin and the kids were being taught at church their parents were living in sin?

34 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Even if not married, the structure of having a mom and dad is still present.  A child can still have these parents in the eternities.  That's not so for gays and polygamists.  A child that presently has 2+ moms or 2+ dads will never have them in the eternities

There are plenty of kids who live in a single parent home (no "structure of having a mom and dad" present).   So that reason falls apart too.

And what about children in homes of part member families or where a parent is sinning to the point where they will not be with their children "in the eternities"?  Are those kids able to get baptized?  See, that reason falls apart too.

For every example or justification you attempt to give for this policy, there are similar examples where the kids in those homes are allowed to be baptized.

Your reasons all crumble and it simply comes down to blatant discrimination against children who live in homes where their parents are in a SSM.  

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What can a child do who is living in a home where the parents are "shacking up"?  Where parents are drinking"  Where parents are doing drugs?  Once again, your reasoning falls apart completely here.  Why wouldn't a child have to renounce their family structure at a tender age if their parents were living in sin and the kids were being taught at church their parents were living in sin?

There are plenty of kids who live in a single parent home (no "structure of having a mom and dad" present).   So that reason falls apart too.

And what about children in homes of part member families or where a parent is sinning to the point where they will not be with their children "in the eternities"?  Are those kids able to get baptized?  See, that reason falls apart too.

For every example or justification you attempt to give for this policy, there are similar examples where the kids in those homes are allowed to be baptized.

Your reasons all crumble and it simply comes down to blatant discrimination against children who live in homes where their parents are in a SSM.  

I agree with you. IMO, the church is doing this to reduce the chance that gay married folks are like every other married couple in the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree with you. IMO, the church is doing this to reduce the chance that gay married folks are like every other married couple in the church. 

What's weird (IMO) is that a gay couple can live together and not be called in for church discipline or excommunication (well they could be called in, but it's not spelled out as Apostasy which is reason for excommunication).  But, if they choose to enter the commitment of a legal marriage, suddenly they are now an apostate and then be punished with excommunication.  There is just so much to all of this that makes absolutely no sense (for me and many others I know).

This is why I firmly believe all of this will eventually be walked back and changed (including getting rid of the policy regarding the children in these homes too).  But it will take years most likely.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Jean-Luc Picard said:

Would a similar policy against children being baptized who have hetero parents not married and cohabitating cause a similar stir?

I think a lot of the anger stemmed from the very, very specific wording and language used in the policy. To some it felt very bureaucratic and legal like. I guess that is how much the Handbook can read.

I talked with a missionary that served in West Africa and the challenges of polygamy and how to support families already consisting of many wives and children. It is a sticky situation to say the least...

Policies are never perfect, almost always someone is offended, hurt, or overlooked.

Hopefully the Bishop is using their best form of inspiration...which is information. 

 

I think there would be an outcry for that situation as well. And in my years of reading members words on the boards or elsewhere, many converts join the church because their home life is really rough and they felt the church was like a family to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

A parable, if you please.

Two friends went to Hawaii  some years back. 

One has very fond memories of the trip.

The other’s  abiding memory, as expressed on a few occasions, was disappointment with the fact that it rained half the time they were there.

Edited by let’s roll
Sense
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

What's weird (IMO) is that a gay couple can live together and not be called in for church discipline or excommunication (well they could be called in, but it's not spelled out as Apostasy which is reason for excommunication).  But, if they choose to enter the commitment of a legal marriage, suddenly they are now an apostate and then be punished with excommunication.  There is just so much to all of this that makes absolutely no sense (for me and many others I know).

Unsurprisingly, I don't find this weird at all.

The church doesn't usually go out of its way to try and excommunicate people - especially if there is a chance they may have a change of heart and repent. 

So, a gay couple who is living together today may happen to be in violation of the commandments. However, at some point in the future (as has happened in at least one case that I know of personally), they may decide that the blessings associated with faithfully living the gospel, attending the temple, etc. are more important to them than the happiness they receive from violating the commandments. At which point they can begin the repentance process.

However, a gay couple who has chosen to marry hasn't merely violated a commandment; they have violated a commandment and made a public declaration that they have absolutely no intention of adhering to the commandment going forward. 

In my mind, it is that willful intent to no longer follow the gospel that separates a sinner from an apostate. 

 

Edited by Amulek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Unsurprisingly, I don't find this weird at all.

The church doesn't usually go out of its way to try and excommunicate people - especially if there is a chance they may have a change of heart and repent. 

So, a gay couple who is living together today may happen to be in violation of the commandments. However, at some point in the future (as has happened in at least one case that I know of personally), they may decide that the blessings associated with faithfully living the gospel, attending the temple, etc. are more important to them than the happiness they receive from violating the commandments. At which point they can begin the repentance process.

However, a gay couple who has chosen to marry hasn't merely violated a commandment; they have violated a commandment and made a public declaration that they have absolutely no intention of adhering to the commandment going forward. 

In my mind, it is that willful intent to no longer follow the gospel that separates a sinner from an apostate. 

 

Oh, I've read the reasons people give for why this is the policy.  I just find it really odd that a couple who is having sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage is all of sudden in apostasy when they take the step to become committed to each other and get married.  

I know many disagree with me and I can understand that....I'm just giving my views and beliefs.  I know many are uncomfortable with this new policy and the classification of "apostasy" for those who choose to marry. 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am sincerely curious if those expressing contempt for this policy are just bothered by this policy or if they are bothered by the deeper Law of Chastity rules around homosexuality.

So for those of you who have expressed that you think this policy is incorrect or wrong, I am curious:

For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:

  • Two men or two women to date & kiss?
  • Two men or two women to have intercourse?
  • Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)?
  • Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)?
  • Two men or two women to get married?

So, in your views, how should the church handle the above and why? Especially if you can cite scripture or teachings from the prophets to back up your view (assuming it's from a standpoint of faith) that would be helpful. 

Specifically, I am interested in hearing from California Boy, Tacenda, DBMormon, SunStoned, JAHS, JulieM, sjdawg, ALarson, and others. I am sincerely trying to understand if you are just opposed to this policy or if you feel the church needs to change it's position on homosexuality and the law of chastity as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am sincerely curious if those expressing contempt for this policy are just bothered by this policy or if they are bothered by the deeper Law of Chastity rules around homosexuality.

So for those of you who have expressed that you think this policy is incorrect or wrong, I am curious:

For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:

  • Two men or two women to date & kiss?
  • Two men or two women to have intercourse?
  • Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)?
  • Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)?
  • Two men or two women to get married?

So, in your views, how should the church handle the above and why? Especially if you can cite scripture or teachings from the prophets to back up your view (assuming it's from a standpoint of faith) that would be helpful. 

Specifically, I am interested in hearing from California Boy, Tacenda, DBMormon, SunStoned, JAHS, JulieM, sjdawg, ALarson, and others. I am sincerely trying to understand if you are just opposed to this policy or if you feel the church needs to change it's position on homosexuality and the law of chastity as a whole.

Virtual up vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am sincerely curious if those expressing contempt for this policy are just bothered by this policy or if they are bothered by the deeper Law of Chastity rules around homosexuality.

So for those of you who have expressed that you think this policy is incorrect or wrong, I am curious:

For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:

  • Two men or two women to date & kiss?
  • Two men or two women to have intercourse?
  • Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)?
  • Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)?
  • Two men or two women to get married?

So, in your views, how should the church handle the above and why? 

I'm not sure why you are lumping all of those together (your bullet points....why throw porn viewing into this?).  I put in bold those I will address as I think porn is an entirely different topic.

I personally believe that the Law of Chastity would not have to be changed (there are husbands and wives in each SSM just as in heterosexual marriages).....but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.

I believe gay members should be treated just as heterosexual members.  They should be able to court and date (staying morally clean) and then enter into a committed marriage.  As long as they live by the same standards set out by the church leaders for any couple dating or married, I believe they are not sinning.

I understand that many disagree with this, but you asked to hear from me regarding my views and beliefs and so I'm responding with them.   I respect that others feel differently.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

In my opinion, the policy seems to be a reaction to the loss in the SCOTUS by Pres. Nelson and Oaks.  Pres. Oaks championed the church's position against same sex marriage from the start of his apostleship and I think he was very upset at the loss.  Immediately, he started claiming that religious freedom was somehow being attacked, he also gave a speech where he advised that members were justified in not letting their children stay overnight with their companion if they were in a same sex relationship, and the policy appeared.  Pres. Nelson was then at the ready to claim the policy was from God when he spoke at BYU Hawaii two months later, supporting his friend Pres. Oaks.  My guess is that if we could see internal documents, they would show that Pres. Nelson and Oaks were champions of the policy and probably were its authors, pushing it through.  So, I think the church will back-track on this once these two are no longer with us.

 

Edited by Exiled
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I personally believe that the Law of Chastity would not have to be changed (there are husbands and wives in each SSM just as in heterosexual marriages).....but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.

 

Without desiring to get into specifics, I wonder if you have been to the temple lately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without desiring to get into specifics, I wonder if you have been to the temple lately.

 

Are you serious, Scott?  Without getting into specifics, when was the last time you looked down on another member or insinuated that the member was sinning because he/she had a different opinion than you?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you are lumping all of those together (your bullet points....why throw porn viewing into this?).  I put in bold those I will address as I think porn is an entirely different topic.

I personally believe that the Law of Chastity would not have to be changed (there are husbands and wives in each SSM just as in heterosexual marriages).....but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.

I believe gay members should be treated just as heterosexual members.  They should be able to court and date (staying morally clean) and then enter into a committed marriage.  As long as they live by the same standards set out by the church leaders for any couple dating or married, I believe they are not sinning.

I understand that many disagree with this, but you asked to hear from me regarding my views and beliefs and so I'm responding with them.   I respect that others feel differently.

Yup!!!  Excellent response that expresses how I feel perfectly.  Treat the gay members equal to those who are not gay.  Allow them to date and marry the sex they are physically attracted to.  The leaders have learned that advocating they marry the opposite sex was disastrous (for many) and caused so much heartbreak for many.

So this!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without desiring to get into specifics, I wonder if you have been to the temple lately.

Well, that's really none of your business, is it?

But....yes, I was just there last week.  And?

(I know of the recent change....if that's what you're wondering about.  And I added to my comment: "but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.")

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I personally believe that the Law of Chastity would not have to be changed (there are husbands and wives in each SSM just as in heterosexual marriages).....but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.

I believe gay members should be treated just as heterosexual members.  They should be able to court and date (staying morally clean) and then enter into a committed marriage.  As long as they live by the same standards set out by the church leaders for any couple dating or married, I believe they are not sinning.

I understand that many disagree with this, but you asked to hear from me regarding my views and beliefs and so I'm responding with them.   I respect that others feel differently.

Thank you for giving an honest answer on this. I am sincerely trying to understand your opinion and how you came to it, not stir the pot. If you don't mind, I'd love to know why you feel that it is okay for men/men and women/women to be together sexually after marriage given all of the scripture, precedence, and prophets who have spoken against it, while none have spoken for it. I just can't see any precedence for this.

Second, if it's not too personal I am curious if the church stands firm on its current Law or Chastity teachings, is this something you believe strongly enough that you would consider leaving the church over it?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yup!!!  Excellent response that expresses how I feel perfectly.  Treat the gay members equal to those who are not gay.  Allow them to date and marry the sex they are physically attracted to.  The leaders have learned that advocating they marry the opposite sex was disastrous (for many) and caused so much heartbreak for many.

So this!!!

Julie - If you don't mind, I am wondering the same two questions from you that I asked ALarson above. I am trying to figure out how you arrived at this conclusion considering precedence against it and if you feel it strong enough you'd consider leaving the church over it? (I realize this is personal and you don't have to answer)

Share this post


Link to post

Also for both of you, do you believe the church should provide sealings for same-sex marriage? Do you believe that in the eternities men/men and women/women can be together in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Thank you for giving an honest answer on this. I am sincerely trying to understand your opinion and how you came to it, not stir the pot. If you don't mind, I'd love to know why you feel that it is okay for men/men and women/women to be together sexually after marriage given all of the scripture, precedence, and prophets who have spoken against it, while none have spoken for it. I just can't see any precedence for this.

I believe Prophets have been wrong in the past and most definitely the teachings and beliefs have changed over the years (even on this topic).  I believe our current policy is still against what God would want for his sons and daughters who are gay and that there will be more change in the future.

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Second, if it's not too personal I am curious if the church stands firm on its current Law or Chastity teachings, is this something you believe strongly enough that you would consider leaving the church over it?

No (but I strongly believe the teachings on this will continue to change and evolve...just as they have in the past.)  I believe when the younger generations become the leaders, this will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am sincerely curious if those expressing contempt for this policy are just bothered by this policy or if they are bothered by the deeper Law of Chastity rules around homosexuality.

So for those of you who have expressed that you think this policy is incorrect or wrong, I am curious:

For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:

  • Two men or two women to date & kiss?
  • Two men or two women to have intercourse?
  • Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)?
  • Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)?
  • Two men or two women to get married?

So, in your views, how should the church handle the above and why? Especially if you can cite scripture or teachings from the prophets to back up your view (assuming it's from a standpoint of faith) that would be helpful. 

Specifically, I am interested in hearing from California Boy, Tacenda, DBMormon, SunStoned, JAHS, JulieM, sjdawg, ALarson, and others. I am sincerely trying to understand if you are just opposed to this policy or if you feel the church needs to change it's position on homosexuality and the law of chastity as a whole.

Anonymous Mormon"For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:"

Two men or two women to date & kiss? Not really a sin, but sins such as lying, cheating & stealing, IMO are far worse. 

Two men or two women to have intercourse? This is a tough one for me since being raised to believe sex before marriage is sinful.  But gays wanting to be married only makes this crazier for the church to come down on them since it would be safer than sex with many. Although so many people that were heterosexual and sexually active before they repented are still able to baptize their children.

Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)? I know several couples in the church that are going through this with their spouses that are addicted to porn. Word tends to go around, sadly. But their children are still able to be baptized. Do I think the church should think it is sinful? No more than the other sins out there such as cheating, lying, stealing etc. 

Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)? The church doesn't get into the business of monitering folks that are same sex and living together, who knows if it is sexual. I know two older women that have lived together for years, and even Pres. Nelson's wife Wendy lived and bought a house with Sheri Dew before she married Pres. Nelson. And if they are not gay and living with the same sex, their children can still be baptized.

Two men or two women to get married? I sort of understand the problem or the bind the church is in to okay a gay person to marry if they then want to go to the temple. But things do change and eyes are opened, over and over again. 

Thanks for including me in on these questions, hope what I've said helps you understand my viewpoints.

 

 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's really none of your business, is it?

But....yes, I was just there last week.  And?

(I know of the recent change....if that's what you're wondering about.  And I added to my comment: "but it has been changed before, so it could change again if that was necessary.")

So there’s even less justification for lexical duplicity on this than before, which is why I wondered if you were aware/cognizant of the changes. Not that there was any reasonable justification before. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...