Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[ERayR]

It wouldn't have even crossed my mind that I would have needed to clarify, given that I've never voiced any concern about the church's decision to classify the act of entering into a same-sex marriage as apostasy.

 

After a brief poll of some of my friends in response to your request for consideration, all of them share that same response; we didn't clarify that that was the extent, because the thought never crossed our mind, especially since we haven't voiced concern over that aspect of the policy.

 

It's only you who's claiming that we have ulterior motives for opposing the policy.

 

However, I am more than happy to go on record by saying that the negative affect on children is the extent of my concern--in fact, mostly in cases where kids of failed mixed orientation are being raised in the church--and I really don't care about the Church's position on gay marriage being an act of apostasy, especially since policy is not doctrine, and classifications of apostasy can change over time (as they did with plural marriage, and have the potential to change again regarding such).

 

How many even have children and of that number how many want their children to be members?

[Mystery Meat]

I think that's one of the reasons people are upset by it.

 

Well then they are upset for no reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not aware of anyone wanting to commandeer the helm.

That's what you're doing when you speak of "changing hearts and minds." You're trying to effect a change from within, undermining the clear direction from the leadership through a sort of political movement.

 

In the words of Elder Christofferson:

 

So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

 

I've given bold-face emphasis to the phrasing and passages that express firmness and unchangableness.

 

If there is a change of hearts and minds, it must be among those who do not currently accept what the Church has taught as the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, they must ultimately find themselves frustrated and, like some people this past weekend, end up taking leave on their own.

 

As an aside, I find it ironic that, not long ago, Elder Christofferson was the one chosen by critics as being their best hope for being soft and malleable with regard to homosexual behavior being a sin. As it happens, he at the moment is perhaps the Church's most prominent spokesman on holding firm.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

Still easier to resign from the LDS church than to cancel Comcast cable.

I love this.  Something we all agree on!

[Jeanne]

Be careful who you love bomb.  What I mean is without an attorney..people who haven't spoke to you for a month decide it is okay to stop by with cookies.  People see through that and some don't like it.

 

Edited to add..most of this is without a telephone call first..it is a drop by sometimes late at night.  You get the bishopric..the mssionaries, hometeachers visiting teachers and then you begin to think...what part of "do not contact"  do you not understand?  I had people stopping by at my workplace..there was just nothing you could do about it and surely nothing you could say.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, but wouldn't it say the same thing to just say "not get baptized" until 18.  Why even a need to mention ordinations and missionary service?

Perhaps it is to make it clear that, to be called on a mission, the 18-year-old would first have to move out of the house, affirmatively and clearly renounce the concept of gay marriage, then receive baptism and all the other necessary requisite ordinances.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Be careful who you love bomb. What I mean is without an attorney..people who haven't spoke to you for a month decide it is okay to stop by with cookies. People see through that and some don't like it.

I would accept cookies from someone I hadn't seen on a long time and not read too much I to it. I'm going home teaching tonight to visit two families I've never met. We are going to check on them and see if they want contact with the church. I am anxious that they will receive our visit. I in no way want to "love bomb" or fake affection. Sometimes we don't visit because we're afraid to impose. It's hard to know what to do when someone doesn't come to church but stays on the rolls.

[Scott Lloyd]

Many critics have pointed to the lack of special circumstances for other children whose parents are living in a different type of sin. I don't think an adulterer, for example, is going to have much success in convincing the members to appeal to the LDS leadership to accept adultery as an acceptable lifestyle. The issue with SSM is different because there is so much support for it outside of the church. I believe that this is the one issue that could splinter the church. If children of SS couples were viewed as stable, some of the arguments against SSM would go away. I believe the leaders aren't really sure what to do, but felt the need to do something.

 

Note: This is my opinion, and I offered it only because I was asked.

The Church will never be splintered. Conceivably, its numbers may be reduced, there may be more schismatic off-shoots formed (this would be nothing new) but the Church itself will remain intact to fulfill its mission as best it can, under the direction of Jesus Christ.

[Mystery Meat]

I would accept cookies from someone I hadn't seen on a long time and not read too much I to it. I'm going home teaching tonight to visit two families I've never met. We are going to check on them and see if they want contact with the church. I am anxious that they will receive our visit. I in no way want to "love bomb" or fake affection. Sometimes we don't visit because we're afraid to impose. It's hard to know what to do when someone doesn't come to church but stays on the rolls.

 

If we don't go visit, we make the decision for them.

[Russell C McGregor]

Be careful who you love bomb.  What I mean is without an attorney..people who haven't spoke to you for a month decide it is okay to stop by with cookies.  People see through that and some don't like it.

 

Edited to add..most of this is without a telephone call first..it is a drop by sometimes late at night.  You get the bishopric..the mssionaries, hometeachers visiting teachers and then you begin to think...what part of "do not contact"  do you not understand?  I had people stopping by at my workplace..there was just nothing you could do about it and surely nothing you could say.

 

Mmmm, cookies...

[KevinG]

If we don't go visit, we make the decision for them.

Yes. I have been less active recently and I'm sensitive to this. But I don't blame others or accuse them of hypocrisy because they may have been shy about visiting and think cookies might be a good gesture. Tonight I'm going to meet and listen mostly.

[Russell C McGregor]

Turpitude.    This is why I like conversing with you, Russell.

 

Apart from the fact that that particular word isn't used by everyone, what I've said is actually pretty much the way most Latter-day Saints view the matter.

 

We're not perfect; I know I'm not. But on this issue, we are on the Lord's side.

 

Won't you join us?

[rockpond]

That's what you're doing when you speak of "changing hearts and minds." You're trying to effect a change from within, undermining the clear direction from the leadership through a sort of political movement.

In the words of Elder Christofferson:

If there is a change of hearts and minds, it must be among those who do not currently accept what the Church has taught as the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, they must ultimately find themselves frustrated and, like some people this past weekend, end up taking leave on their own.

No, I'm not saying any one person or group is trying to change hearts and minds. It's the policy itself, in this case, and the implementation of it that will lead to those changes. Just like Prop 8 seemed to usher in a period of change in the church. (I know, I know... You don't see that change but you're looking at one narrow piece of it.)

And WRT your final comment there, it's the church's teachings about right and wrong that led me to what I currently believe about homosexuality. Otherwise my very conservative political leanings would have kept me in the anti-gay-marriage camp.

[rockpond]

Well then they are upset for no reason.

Because you don't think Kirton had anything to do with this policy or because you don't think people should be concerned about having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances?

[Russell C McGregor]

Because you don't think Kirton had anything to do with this policy or because you don't think people should be concerned about having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances?

 

There is absolutely no evidence before us that we are "having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances."

 

That is pure anti-Mormon propaganda, and it is false.

[rockpond]

Apart from the fact that that particular word isn't used by everyone, what I've said is actually pretty much the way most Latter-day Saints view the matter.

We're not perfect; I know I'm not. But on this issue, we are on the Lord's side.

Won't you join us?

Despite our disagreements, we're both on the Lord's side. The rest of this will get worked out... Line upon line.

[KevinG]

Well..you can baptize them when they die I guess.

 

 

Mormons will be Mormons.

 

At least the anti-Mormon liked your snark.  I found it kind of offensive myself.

[Zakuska]

Murder, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting, disrespecting parents....

All of those were also part of Mosaic Law. Just because part of the law is no longer binding does not mean all of it is obsolete, or better said, the law under which we now live includes many of the same commandments.

I never claimed it was "ALL" obsolete and I agree we do live under some of the same commandments. Those would be the 10 original written on the stone tablets. Not all this man made minutia and bad policy found in Leviticus. Christ often broke the minutia contained in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, especially the minutia to do with the Sabbath.

If you want to get a good laugh. Sit down and read the book of Leviticus and think about trying to apply some of the things the Jewish Elders proscribe for different things in to days day and age. It's quite enlightening just how ritualistic and confined they must have lived.

 

Just as we have scriptural and prophetic evidence that it was wrong to murder, steal, fornicate, and lie before, during and after the Law of Moses, we have scriptural and prophetic evidence that it was wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender before, during and after the Law of Moses. We have no such evidence that eating shrimp, as you say, was a violation of God's word before or after the Law of Moses. Therefore, your comparison is weak at best, downright misleading at worst.

You do realize that cold blooded murder was called "Righteous" by God After the Law was given not to Murder? There's even a verse of a Hymn dedicated to it.

Pslams 106:30-31

Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. 31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

He's talking about this blood-atonement right here.

Numbers 25

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. 9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

God is even elated that Phinehas did it and rewarded him for it.

10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

So please reconcile for us... Why was Phinehas able to murder two people in cold calculated blood (AFTER the Law of Moses was given) and it was considered "Righteous"? He's even given the preisthood for eternity as a reward for murder.

 

You keep trying to equate restrictions on diet found in Leviticus with homosexuality and each time I have pointed out that we still live under many of the commandments found under the Law of Moses you have ignored it. I do not doubt that my third attempt will also be ignored. But by all means keep bringing up the same, tired (and worthless) arguments that do not help your case at all?

Haven't ignored it at all. I just disagree that Homosexuality can be considered an abomination when other Marriage agreements also listed as "abominations" in that chapter are perfectly fine with God before the law was given but not after. Aren't Gods laws consistent? Would he consider the marriage of Abraham an Abomination just after the Levitical law was Given? Perhaps the Levitical law isn't all its cracked up to be?

So can you explain why Abraham was allowed to marry his sister and the Levitical law contradicts that and says his marriage was an "abomination"?

Maybe all those "Abominations" in that chapter weren't really consider by God "abominations" at all and the Jewish Scribes made it all up.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

There is absolutely no evidence before us that we are "having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances."

That is pure anti-Mormon propaganda, and it is false.

Protection from tort law is the best explanation I've heard for why this policy was written and implemented the way it was.

[KevinG]

Despite our disagreements, we're both on the Lord's side. The rest of this will get worked out... Line upon line.

 

It seems to me that demanding the Prophet's and Apostles change the rules of the LDS Church to favor their concept of what they should be, or conservative members exclaiming that the rule will never change, are both out of the scope of authority of the current living Saints, and neither indicate a great amount of faith in the Lord or patience with His plans.

 

I really am content to accept the path the church is on and the rules governing us today, while continuing to petition the Lord for understanding, not to recreate the church or the scriptures in my own egos image.

[KevinG]

Protection from tort law is the best explanation I've heard for why this policy was written and implemented the way it was.

 

You have to by pretty cynical to believe the lawyers wrote it and Elder Christofferson was just providing cover with his comments.

 

No one has provided an ounce of proof that a lawyer even read the change.  I would be OK with that, since I've never worked for a large organization that didn't pass everything published past a lawyer (even the use of our university logo gets that treatment).  But to say the lawyers wrote it for tort reasons.  You are talking out of an orifice that isn't normally used for speaking. 

[pelican]

How about considering the post I quoted and responded directly too. Read the last paragraph in that post which is quoted. The fact the title of the thread was changed and the moderator who also stated "be respectful" is suggestive of the intent thread behind the creation of this thread.

Really, you sure about that?

 

Please provide an example of where someone was mocked for leaving the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me that demanding the Prophet's and Apostles change the rules of the LDS Church to favor their concept of what they should be, or conservative members exclaiming that the rule will never change, are both out of the scope of authority of the current living Saints, and neither indicate a great amount of faith in the Lord or patience with His plans.

 

I really am content to accept the path the church is on and the rules governing us today, while continuing to petition the Lord for understanding, not to recreate the church or the scriptures in my own egos image.

In declaring that the Church won't change on the matter of homosexuality being a sin, I am only echoing what the Lord's anointed servants have said. That's why I quoted Elder Christofferson and highlighted passages in that official statement.

[Duncan]

I thought the Church has it's own Legal Wing headed up by GA Emeritus Elder Lance B. Wickman, if true why would the Church sluff on all this legal mumbo jumbo to some outside legal place?

[Ron]

Perhaps it is to make it clear that, to be called on a mission, the 18-year-old would first have to move out of the house, affirmatively and clearly renounce the concept of gay marriage, then receive baptism and all the other necessary requisite ordinances.

 

Thats not what it says.  It states that to be baptized OR serve a mission you must get first presidency approval. A child of SSM couple will never have to seek first presidency approval for mission now that the Nov. 13 letter has changed that rule. Read the policy and then the Nov. 13 letter again please.  

Ordinance and mission first presidency approval are completely off the table now.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Ron