Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PacMan

Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This isn't about the law of chastity, either. It s about the definition of marriage, which is my point.

But both of those have changed over the years (mainly because of polygamy).  I think that should be considered as a part of this discussion.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

***...The desire to be wth someone and share life with someone is fundamental to how we have been created.  If you are gay, that person happens to be the same sex as you.

Gay couples will be fine without participating in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What is not entirely clear at this point is how many of the next generation will be ok with a church that excludes gay couples and their children from the body of Christ.  Only time will answer that question.

This is quite understandable but when a gay person has a spiritual conviction on the parameters for such expression, and the requirements of covenants, he lives a life consistent with the Church’s teachings. Such spiritual convictions are often forged under any the opposing societal forces of any generation. I think the rising generation, as preceding generations, will begin with what they see as needful in living their lives rather than worrying about the tenets of any church, especially any they don't belong to. I do see an increasing mater of degree in how far apart the two would tend to be.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

There are so many LDS families that have family/children that are gay that the church will have to concede or lose members. Today my husband mentioned his brother who is a counselor in the bishopric saying that he doesn't expect his gay son to go through life w/o sex to someone he loves. This family is as stalwart as they come. His wife, my sister-in-law, for years worked on the Timpanogas temple grounds until they discontinued the volunteering program when there was a problem. Can't remember what my she told me about it, maybe it's been worked out. But now she works in the temple once a week. And before that attended the temple weekly. This is a woman that would go to the temple and spend all day when we'd go on vacation with all of the adults in the family to St. George and I'm almost sure she agrees with her husband. 

 

So often, people that defend this policy think it is about gay couples and their children.  This policy effects far more members, their families, friends, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters etc.  I mean it is not like gay couples are brreaking the doors down to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This policy is a much bigger issue with members than it is with the gay community.  Few even know about it, and the ones that do are not surprised that the church would have such a policy against gay families and their children, given the Church's history with gays.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/13/2019 at 10:05 PM, california boy said:

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. 

To be fair, most people outside the church don't really view us as a legitimate instrument in bringing people to Christ in general. 

I for one  believe the brethren when they say that this policy was genuinely created from a place of compassion.  That rings true to their character.  I have no doubt that these children are in their heart.  I also have no doubt that their gay parents are in their heart as well.  There is no animosity - only concern.  I am sure that they all have loved ones in their lives who are gay - Elder Christofferson for sure.    I don't believe that they would intentionally use an innocent child as a pawn to attack gay people (whom they love).  That accusation is so far out of line with who they are that it is easily dismissed.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is quite understandable but when a gay person has a spiritual conviction on the parameters for such expression, and the requirements of covenants, he lives a life consistent with the Church’s teachings. Such spiritual convictions are often forged under any the opposing societal forces of any generation. I think the rising generation, as preceding generations, will begin with what they see as needful in living their lives rather than worrying about the tenets of any church, especially any they don't belong to. I do see an increasing mater of degree in how far apart the two would tend to be.

That may be true.  Certainly I held that belief for many years.  But ultimately, it was the church itself that gave me enough doubt and reason to no longer believe that everything church leaders taught came from God.  Through my own prayful asking of God what i should do lead me down a different path, one that I have never regretted taking.  

I think the rising generation are no longer willing to just nod their heads in agreement with what church leaders tell them to do or believe.  I think that many, like me are seeking answers for themselves and also are finding a different paths to follow that for them, more closely follows the teachings of Christ as they understand them.  For some, this journey is starting with this jarring idea put forth by church leaders that children should be prohibited from baptism because of the beliefs and actions of their parents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

That may be true.  Certainly I held that belief for many years.  But ultimately, it was the church itself that gave me enough doubt and reason to no longer believe that everything church leaders taught came from God.  Through my own prayful asking of God what i should do lead me down a different path, one that I have never regretted taking.  

I think the rising generation are no longer willing to just nod their heads in agreement with what church leaders tell them to do or believe.  I think that many, like me are seeking answers for themselves and also are finding a different paths to follow that for them, more closely follows the teachings of Christ as they understand them.  For some, this journey is starting with this jarring idea put forth by church leaders that children should be prohibited from baptism because of the beliefs and actions of their parents.

Possible reason to think for ourselves, is that the leaders have time after time lead wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, pogi said:

To be fair, most people outside the church don't really view us as a legitimate instrument in bringing people to Christ in general. 

I for one  believe the brethren when they say that this policy was genuinely created from a place of compassion.  That rings true to their character.  I have no doubt that these children are in their heart.  I also have no doubt that their gay parents are in their heart as well.  There is no animosity - only concern.  I am sure that they all have loved ones in their lives who are gay - Elder Christofferson for sure.    I don't believe that they would intentionally use an innocent child as a pawn to attack gay people (whom they love).  That accusation is so far out of line with who they are that it rotten and stinks. 

Of course I agree that most people outside the church really don't view the church as a legitimate instrument in bringing people to Christ.  Heck, the church has a difficult time convincing others outside the church that it is even Christian.

I don't necessarily think that church leaders have annimosity towards those of us that are gay.  But it does seem to me that this policy grew out of the legalization of gay marriage.  From my point of view, it was more coming from a position that the church could not stop gay marriage from being legal.  What they did have the power to do is to as much as possible, keep acceptance of gay marriage out of the church.  And this is the plan they came up with to do just that.  So yeah, to some extent, these gay families were pawns used to accomplish this by taking this matter out of the hands of local bishops and stake presidents who would be more in a position to evaluate each situation individually.  By making this a church wide policy, those situations where it did possibly make sense to have the child participate in membership got shut down, putting as much distance as possible between gay families and the church.  

The church leaders may have made it as difficult as possible for gay families to be involved in the church, but in the process, the leaders also made it more difficult for those connected with those families to stay in the church.  Not sure if they saw this happening.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

But both of those have changed over the years (mainly because of polygamy).  I think that should be considered as a part of this discussion.  

Whether they have changed or not, the policy does not address the intersection of chastity and marriage. The policy only ties back to the Church's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman (as it always has been), not chastity. It addresses marriage and apostasy in relation to the perspective and aims of the couple, their child and Church, not chastity.

Other policies through the Church's history may tie chastity and marriage (e.g. sex outside of marriage breaks both the covenant and the law of chastity), but not this one.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, california boy said:

That may be true.  Certainly I held that belief for many years.  But ultimately, it was the church itself that gave me enough doubt and reason to no longer believe that everything church leaders taught came from God.  Through my own prayful asking of God what i should do lead me down a different path, one that I have never regretted taking.  

I think the rising generation are no longer willing to just nod their heads in agreement with what church leaders tell them to do or believe.  I think that many, like me are seeking answers for themselves and also are finding a different paths to follow that for them, more closely follows the teachings of Christ as they understand them.  For some, this journey is starting with this jarring idea put forth by church leaders that children should be prohibited from baptism because of the beliefs and actions of their parents.

Such has been the case in every dispensation. Also, rhetoric like that in your final sentence comes after the rejection, and undermines any good-faith explanation for the actual reason for the rejection. If you give it some thought, I think God would tell you that the policy (in general; there are exceptions) is better described as the Church "prohibiting" a covenant relationship with apostates in behalf of their children on a point of apostasy that governs the paramount parent-child relationship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Such has been the case in every dispensation. Also, rhetoric like that in your final sentence comes after the rejection, and undermines any good-faith explanation for the actual reason for the rejection. If you give it some thought, I think God would tell you that the policy (in general; there are exceptions) is better described as the Church "prohibiting" a covenant relationship with apostates in behalf of their children on a point of apostasy that governs the paramount parent-child relationship.

You must admit that not everyone sees this policy the same way that you do or accept the reasoning that the church has presented for implementing it.  For some, the Church's reasoning is not beleveable or logical and seems more like an excuse they are trying to use to justify this policy.  That doesn't mean that all who have a different point of view are speaking in bad faith.  Nor does it mean they have not inquired of the Lord and have received a different answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

You must admit that not everyone sees this policy the same way that you do or accept the reasoning that the church has presented for implementing it.  For some, the Church's reasoning is not beleveable or logical and seems more like an excuse they are trying to use to justify this policy.  That doesn't mean that all who have a different point of view are speaking in bad faith.  Nor does it mean they have not inquired of the Lord and have received a different answer.

Those who speak in good faith typically use something other than rhetoric and polemics while getting their point across. When I say that "I think God would tell you that the policy (in general; there are exceptions) is better described as the Church "prohibiting" a covenant relationship with apostates in behalf of their children on a point of apostasy that governs the paramount parent-child relationship," I am suggesting how the well-informed who speak in good faith would describe the policy regardless of how they feel about the leaders and any alternate path they have chosen as the result of their prayers and understanding of God's will for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Of course I agree that most people outside the church really don't view the church as a legitimate instrument in bringing people to Christ.  Heck, the church has a difficult time convincing others outside the church that it is even Christian.

I don't necessarily think that church leaders have annimosity towards those of us that are gay.  But it does seem to me that this policy grew out of the legalization of gay marriage.  From my point of view, it was more coming from a position that the church could not stop gay marriage from being legal.  What they did have the power to do is to as much as possible, keep acceptance of gay marriage out of the church.  And this is the plan they came up with to do just that.  So yeah, to some extent, these gay families were pawns used to accomplish this by taking this matter out of the hands of local bishops and stake presidents who would be more in a position to evaluate each situation individually.  By making this a church wide policy, those situations where it did possibly make sense to have the child participate in membership got shut down, putting as much distance as possible between gay families and the church.  

The church leaders may have made it as difficult as possible for gay families to be involved in the church, but in the process, the leaders also made it more difficult for those connected with those families to stay in the church.  Not sure if they saw this happening.

Of course the policy addresses current doctrinal conflicts with society, especially those that occur internationally. That is what Church leaders do, and typically in response to local leaders’ questions germane to our day and place. I’m sure they also saw the challenge in balancing charity with discipleship, as if I recall correctly, such was discussed in general conference and other talks long before this policy came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Whether they have changed or not, the policy does not address the intersection of chastity and marriage. The policy only ties back to the Church's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman (as it always has been), not chastity. It addresses marriage and apostasy in relation to the perspective and aims of the couple, their child and Church, not chastity.

Other policies through the Church's history may tie chastity and marriage (e.g. sex outside of marriage breaks both the covenant and the law of chastity), but not this one.

So, why is a person who enters a SSM currently considered to be an Apostate?  

Why is SSM considered to be a sin by our current leaders?

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

So, why is a person who enters a SSM currently considered to be an Apostate?  

Why is SSM considered to be a sin by our current leaders?

There is no specific explanation in the Handbook as to why members in a same gender marriage are in a state of apostasy, but it seems to hinge on the Church's definition of marriage and the progressive ordinances from baptism through temple marriage. Baptism is only the beginning or the continuum. I'm sure members who insist on practicing infant baptism (or any other ordinance contrary to the delegation and directions given by those with the keys) qualify as being in a state of apostasy as well.

I would think its sinfulness has to do with practicing something other than the pattern for marriage set forth in the union of Adam and Eve, irrespective of membership in the Church or using the Church's priesthood keys.

The difference between apostasy and sin on this point has to do with rejection of the priesthood order in the first instance and rejection of the correct practice in the second. Of course someone can do both.

But as far as the policy goes, it seems to have to do with terms of the parents' apostasy and not their sins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is no specific explanation in the Handbook as to why members in a same gender marriage are in a state of apostasy, but it seems to hinge on the Church's definition of marriage and the progressive ordinances from baptism through temple marriage.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.  Of course we know that they are considered to have broken the Law of Chastity (as currently defined or added to by the church leaders). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Why is SSM considered to be a sin by our current leaders?

The reason that any same-sex relationship is a sin is because God declared his law in the garden of Eden (a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they be twain). It has been reiterated with harsh punishments and condemnation throughout the Old Testament. It was taught by Christ in the new Testament (specifically "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female..."). It was taught by his Apostles in the new Testament. It was taught by all of his modern day prophets and apostles as well.

There is zero precedence for SSM to not be sinful, except for modern-day interpretation. In fact, previous to 1950, the general definition of Marriage specifically specified Man and Woman (see Wikipedia) because marriage was recognized as creating a family unit and technology wasn't around for families to be created outside of physical procreation.

I think that the burden of proof for why this is NOT a sin is on you to prove. Why is is SSM not a sin? I find the argument presented earlier about the language of the Law of Chastity in the temple has changed in the past to be a pretty weak argument. Why would God allow SSM all of a sudden? Why not also allow sex out of marriage as well so single women in the church can still have a satisfying sex life? There is no precedence for either and if we are compassionate in regards to companionship and sexuality of gays, then can't God also be compassionate about sexuality of singles?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Those who speak in good faith typically use something other than rhetoric and polemics while getting their point across. When I say that "I think God would tell you that the policy (in general; there are exceptions) is better described as the Church "prohibiting" a covenant relationship with apostates in behalf of their children on a point of apostasy that governs the paramount parent-child relationship," I am suggesting how the well-informed who speak in good faith would describe the policy regardless of how they feel about the leaders and any alternate path they have chosen as the result of their prayers and understanding of God's will for them.

Do you think Christ was speaking in good faith when He said

Quote

 

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

 

I have a good friend who's father abandoned him and his mother when he was only 2 years old.  His mother constantly told him that it was not his fault.  That this was between her and his father.  As an adult, his father came back into his life and they now have a good relationship.  But those scars that happened to my friend when he was just a child remain.  He has huge fear of abandonment issues. He is now 50 years old, but has never been able to be in a relationship for more than a year.  At any hint of some kind of problem he leaves the relationship for fear the person he is with will abandon him.  I once didn't answer one of his emails.  I didn't hear from him for almost a year.  He doesn't live near me, so when we finally got together he told me that he thought I didn't want to be his friend any longer.  Did his father abandon him or did his father just postpone fatherhood?

What happens to a child when a church leader carefully sits down with them and tells them that they are not going to be able to be baptized because of the choices their parents made.  That it is not their fault.  That God still loves them.  Will they still think it is their fault?  That they are not worthy of God's love because of who their parents are?  That they are not worthy to hold the priesthood because of who their parents are?  That no matter how hard they try, no matter what they do, God still doesn't want them to be a part of His church.

I know a thing or two about feeling like God could not possibly love me.  That no matter how hard I tried to do everything God asked of me, I would never be worthy.  Do you know why I decided to go on a mission?  Because in my mind, I seriously thought that when I stood before God and He looked down upon me for being gay, that I would at least be able to say, "But I did go on a mission and serve you for two years."  I thought that somehow that would lessen His judgement against me.  It took me decades to finally believe that God could actually love me.  And that only happened when I reaalized that not everything church leaders say comes from God actually does come from God.

So yeah, I am acting in good faith when I use the words prohibit children from being baptized rather than postponing their baptism.  From my perspective, they are the EXACT words that should be used in what is happening to these children.  It is at the core of why. I believe this church policy is wrong and goes against the teachings of Christ.  No matter what the church says, these children are in the middle of this whole issue the church has with gay marriage.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, why is a person who enters a SSM currently considered to be an Apostate?  

Because such a choice is a complete rejection of the priesthood authority that the Church purports to possess.  Of course anyone is free to not believe in that authority or to reject it.  However, that rejection if the very definition of apostasy.   

 

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Why is SSM considered to be a sin by our current leaders?

Because it prevents an individual from progressing through God's plan for families based on the principle of gender complimentarity (as taught in the Restored Gospel, not the popular protestant notion.)  

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:11

Also from the Church website on Chastity:

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel. "

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...