Jump to content
PacMan

Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.  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.

*See my bold.

Before the policy, the church would not have placed the child in that position. Since they wouldn't be called apostates. Years before that children were able to be baptized with a SSM parent. 

Share this post


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

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

Well, this is the second time the wording for the Law of Chastity has been altered or changed, correct?

So, it most definitely could change again. 

The teachings regarding gays in the church have also changed over the years...and will most likely continue to change and evolve, IMO.  That's the point I was making.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, this is the second time the wording for the Law of Chastity has been altered or changed, correct?

So, it most definitely could change again. 

The teachings regarding gays in the church have also changed over the years...and will most likely continue to change and evolve, IMO.  That's the point I was making.

Changing the wording is one thing; changing the law itself is quite another. 

And there should be little wonder that the wording is changed for the sake of clarity when there are those with a disposition to commit lexical duplicity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, california boy said:

Got it.  You are a stalwart member that supports the policy and have bought into the whole "protect the children" rational.  What can I say other than I don't believe most people outside the church have taken this policy as a positive step to bringing people to Christ.  And I believe most people outside and a lot inside the church believe this is just another attack on gay families and their childre.  But hey, evidently that is not really something the church cares about.  So no worries.

Pretty good example of a facile argument that paints the "other" as both stupid and careless and then moves into an attempt to shame because "the world" agrees with you. Not really addressing the issues though at all and avoids any attempt to discuss the points. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours 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.  

Umm, you really need to read what I write.  In those situations, the parents are still the child's parents.  And they can be for eternity.  There's nothing regarding their family (as opposed to sinful hobbies) that the child would need to renounce.  In other words, the problem isn't the kid's family.  It's the parents decisions, bad habits, etc..  In the gay marriage context, the problem is absolutely the family that was created for the child.  If you don't see that as different, then you have a very obscure view of what a family is and what it means to the church.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Changing the wording is one thing; changing the law itself is quite another. 

What is the law?  Is it different than the words we have defining it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

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.

In this evolution do you believe the church will allow same sex sealings in the temple in the future? If yes, then do you believe that the sealings have validity in the highest realms of the Celestial Kingdom or that they reach a certain level like single ministering angels? 

Assuming you believe the doctrine of eternal increase / becoming Gods, can a same sex couple participate in this if sealed in your opinion?

If the church does accept married same-sex couples but doesn't allow sealings or teach that they are only ministering angels,  do you think that creates second class citizens in the kingdom and that we will see continued frustration and animosity from the gay rights community?

 

I personally don't think any gay rights group will be happy until the church says that same-sex couples are 100% the same now (temple marriage) and for eternity (doctrine of eternal increase) and until that is the case they will complain. And after that is the case they will say the church was wrong and isn't penitent enough (just like for blacks and the priesthood) and must crawl on the floor woefully to repent. The ironic part is I would be surprised if the majority of those in gay rights groups with these opinions even believe in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or temple marriage. So it is somewhat of a moot point what they think. But we sure give them a lot of air-time

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What is the law?  Is it different than the words we have defining it?

 

See “The Family: A Priclamation to the World.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, DBMormon said:

The

Yep, you heard him.  Duty Bound!

Seriously, I don't know how to respond to such an onslaught of ignorance and confusion. It surpasses me that one can distort so much information so completely...but, the distortion does help you build that house on sand. I cannot help you. 

Edited by Storm Rider
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

In this evolution do you believe the church will allow same sex sealings in the temple in the future? If yes, then do you believe that the sealings have validity in the highest realms of the Celestial Kingdom or that they reach a certain level like single ministering angels? 

Assuming you believe the doctrine of eternal increase / becoming Gods, can a same sex couple participate in this if sealed in your opinion?

If the church does accept married same-sex couples but doesn't allow sealings or teach that they are only ministering angels,  do you think that creates second class citizens in the kingdom and that we will see continued frustration and animosity from the gay rights community?

 

I personally don't think any gay rights group will be happy until the church says that same-sex couples are 100% the same now (temple marriage) and for eternity (doctrine of eternal increase) and until that is the case they will complain. And after that is the case they will say the church was wrong and isn't penitent enough (just like for blacks and the priesthood) and must crawl on the floor woefully to repent. The ironic part is I would be surprised if the majority of those in gay rights groups with these opinions even believe in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or temple marriage. So it is somewhat of a moot point what they think. But we sure give them a lot of air-time

Virtual up vote

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I have zero expectation that the mormon church will accept homosexuality or change the Law of Chastity.  I fully support religious freedom and fully support the mormon churches ability to keep weddings performed in temples as heterosexual only.  

With regards to this specific policy my only objection is that it specifically targets the children of homosexual couples.  If the leaders of the church believed their own rhetoric then they would stipulate that  children from all types of homes that don't conform to the LDS standard can't join the church until they are adults (un-married parents, part member families, etc).  The same arguments/issues occur in these families that the church is suggesting they are trying to prevent with these families of homosexual couples

Again, I don't have an issue with the policy in general.  I take issue with targeting children of homosexual couples only.

For what it's worth being an anonymous forum and all, I really respect what you expressed. I personally don't have any issues with the current policy but can certainly understand this point of view. And I appreciate that it's respectful of religious belief that likely won't change and should be okay to have (we can have differing religious beliefs without bashing each other). That said, I also don't mind if they scrapped the policy. I'm frankly kind of indifferent to it just like I am with regards to the policy about polygamist families.

I personally feel that if someone is really interested in joining the church coming from a background like this, having them do it as an adult when they can understand the ramifications of what they are deciding is a good thing. But if it wasn't in place i wouldn't care either as there is certainly merit in having someone participate more fully as a child/adult in the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Seriously, I don't know how to respond to such an onslaught of ignorance and confusion. It surpasses me that one can distort so much information so completely...but, the distortion does help you build that house on sand. I cannot help you. 

I agree with you. But did you have to quote his post in its entirety? It was annoying enough the first time with its wordiness and awkward formatting. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


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

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?

No such insinuation. That’s a bad rap. I believe the change leaves no room any longer for lexical duplicity (if it ever did), so I was wondering whether he was cognizant of it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you. But did you have to quote his post in its entirety? It was annoying enough with its wordiness and awkward formatting. 

An error of laziness and thoughtlessness that I have now corrected. After the fact, I did have a desire to put my comment in a GIGANTIC font because that must have some value to some people as a wake up call. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

See “The Family: A Priclamation to the World.”

 

The Law of Chastity is this:

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

 

The wording would only have to go back to what it was prior to this last change (if going by what is stated in the temple) and it would include those in a SSM.  Since there have been 2 changes already, it most definitely could change again in the future.

We could keep going around in circles here, let's just agree to disagree on this.  You believe it won't change (again) and I believe it could.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


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

In this evolution do you believe the church will allow same sex sealings in the temple in the future? If yes, then do you believe that the sealings have validity in the highest realms of the Celestial Kingdom or that they reach a certain level like single ministering angels? 

I honestly don't know if that will happen (adult same sex sealings).  I would hope that our gay brothers and sisters will be allowed this privilege and blessing (to be sealed to their husband or wife for eternity).

As far as the rest, I can only give the same answer many Mormons give on any number of topics "It will all be worked out even though we don't fully understand everything now".

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, DBMormon said:

The recent policy change on Same Sex couples has opened so many new questions, ramifications and doctrinal contradictions that in spite of our being burned out and numb by all this, it needs be revisited.  I hope to be short and sweet so as to make this possible to skim in 5 minutes and able to be read in full in 20 minutes.  So with that here we go!

Bill,

You may have seen in the other thread that I have never listed to your podcast. That said, I would be interested in it and listen to ~8 hours of podcasts per week. Also, I am a target audience since I try to listen to all sides of a discussion. However, I was put off by how you started out presenting yourself as an 'honest host seeking truth and good dialogue' and then ending by almost bragging that your interview with one church member proved the church is false. As such, your tone made me not interested in your podcast because it seems you are just trying to disparage the church via a wolf in sheeps clothing approach.

I found it ironic that you copied and pasted a bunch of internet arguments in a thread called Bill Reel Straw Man. As such, I want to give you a challenge. If you will put on your critical thinking cap and act as the 'honest host seeking truth and good dialogue' and will assess the arguments you laid out in this long cut and paste post, outlining which ones have merits and which are just fluff, then I will remove my personal boycott of your podcast and listen to the first episode of your interview podcast. And if it's good I'll keep going. 

But honestly if this cut and paste straw-man arguments is the best you have, then you just seem like another person with a podcast and an ax to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ and I really don't want to waste my time listening

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly don't know if that will happen (adult same sex sealings).  I would hope that our gay brothers and sisters will be allowed this privilege and blessing (to be sealed to their husband or wife for eternity).

As far as the rest, I can only give the same answer many Mormons give on any number of topics "It will all be worked out even though we don't fully understand everything now".

Good answers! I too believe it will all work out in the end and we don't understand it all now. I take the same approach to those with same sex attraction, even though I don't think the Church will change their policies. I appreciate your being patient and giving me a full understanding of your view.

(side note: I am still interested in hearing from others on this. And sorry for hogging the thread. I've lurked here for a long time and have honestly wondered on this question. But if I am overposting, just let me know.)

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

With regards to this specific policy my only objection is that it specifically targets the children of homosexual couples.  If the leaders of the church believed their own rhetoric then they would stipulate that  children from all types of homes that don't conform to the LDS standard can't join the church until they are adults (un-married parents, part member families, etc).  The same arguments/issues occur in these families that the church is suggesting they are trying to prevent with these families of homosexual couples

Parents "from all types of homes" who have committed adultery or murder or fraud or other criminal acts know that they are sinning and expect that their children will be taught this in the Church and have probably taught this to their children as well. However, gay parents who are cohabiting or married will not agree that they are sinning and will try to teach it as an acceptable lifestyle to their children in the home. Thus comes a real conflict between what the kids learn in church, including what they have promised to live at baptism and what their parents believe. I very much doubt that gay parents are going agree they are living in sin and be fully supportive of the church's policy on that. The Church's policy takes away the situation where a young child has to choose between the church and parents and maintains complete control the parents have for their child. By waiting to be baptized the children are not put in a position where they have to promise to live by doctrines that are against what their parents believe. We are setting the children up to fail if we baptize them without the full cooperation and support of the parents for the policy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Parents "from all types of homes" who have committed adultery or murder or fraud or other criminal acts know that they are sinning and expect that their children will be taught this in the Church and have probably taught this to their children as well. However, gay parents who are cohabiting or married will not agree that they are sinning and will try to teach it as an acceptable lifestyle to their children in the home. Thus comes a real conflict between what the kids learn in church, including what they have promised to live at baptism and what their parents believe. I very much doubt that gay parents are going agree they are living in sin and be fully supportive of the church's policy on that. The Church's policy takes away the situation where a young child has to choose between the church and parents and maintains complete control the parents have for their child. By waiting to be baptized the children are not put in a position where they have to promise to live by doctrines that are against what their parents believe. We are setting the children up to fail if we baptize them without the full cooperation and support of the parents for the policy.

You believe a non-member parent (whether married or not)believes that they are sinning?  I respectfully disagree.

I do, however, agree that we are setting children up for failure if we are baptizing people without the full support and cooperation of the parents. That is the reason I suggest waiting for until they are adults for all types of non-conforming families not just homosexual parents.  I've lived through the stigma, shame, and worry that comes with having a non-believing parent.  Each lesson on the word of wisdom, law of chastity, eternal families, priesthood was just a reminder that my family didn't fit the mold.  My father was supportive of my mother taking us to church but he certainly didn't believe he was sinning.  The lessons being taught in church were dividing our family every bit as much as anything being taught was bringing us together.

Personally I don't understand why any homosexual parents would want their kids to have anything to do with Mormonism.  It is a recipe for disaster.  I just don't believe that only families of gay people should be singled out.  If it is based on the law of chastity then don't let the children of anyone whose parents aren't living the law of chastity join until the issue is resolved.  Treat all sexual sin (speaking from the perspective of mormonsim, not my own belief) the same way.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Umm, you really need to read what I write.  In those situations, the parents are still the child's parents.  

Members who are gay can still be the child's parents too.  I'm not sure what your point is here?

 

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

There's nothing regarding their family (as opposed to sinful hobbies) that the child would need to renounce. 

Of course there is.  If a child was taught that "shacking up" was a sin when he attended church and that he would not be a faithful member if he lived as his parents lived, he would have to renounce it (in order to be considered "worthy").  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No such insinuation. That’s a bad rap. I believe the change leaves no room any longer for lexical duplicity (if it ever did), so I was wondering whether he was cognizant of it. 

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Good answers! I too believe it will all work out in the end and we don't understand it all now. I take the same approach to those with same sex attraction, even though I don't think the Church will change their policies. I appreciate your being patient and giving me a full understanding of your view.

Welcome to the forum.   I hope you stick around :) 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, california boy said:

So I say, why spend any more time rehashing this whole issue.  It isn't going to change

And yet you continue to flail, and flail in, your useless BS (best shot.)

 

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...