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

[ERayR]

You missed the point.  I’m not equivocating the church’s new discriminatory policy towards LGBT individuals and their families, with slavery directly.  The prior post asked “if Pres. Monson hates gay people.”  My point is that the consequences of policies like this are what is important not the feelings of the person that’s implementing the policies. 

 

I believe it is a fair comparison to make.  If we can’t talk about slavery and other mistakes that our society has made in the past and compare them to the present, then how do we expect to learn and grow as a society?  This is fair ground for discussion in my opinion, and if you disagree and are too ashamed to look in the mirror and self evaluate, then feel free to kick me out of this thread.  

 

No I think we got the point loud and clear.  Plainly well poisoning.

[Buckeye]

Interestingly, I home teach a family whose dad was just sentenced to four years in State Prison for murder.  He has two young children who are still allowed to attend and will presumably be baptized when they turn eight.  So this isn't a hypothetical situation.  Why would a child who has married-gay parents be excluded from baptism while the children of a murderer are allowed to get baptized?

 

Because members don't tend to drop their opposition to murder when they get to know a murderer. 

[Zakuska]

Well that's not difficult. You just have to go Numbers 12:12, where Miriam and Aaron opposed Moses and "the anger of the Lord burned against them." They were trying to usurp Moses's authority and were severely chastened.

 

Significantly, this is placed in the scriptures immediately after the chapter where it is recounted that Moses said, "Would that all God's people were prophets and that he would put his spirit on every one of them."

 

It is as though it were strategically placed  to teach a lesson to those, like you, who would declare that one person has just as much authority as another as a rationalization for murmuring against appointed leaders.

 

 

The Lord being angry with some one doesn't mean what thy did was a sin. To sin you have to know something is a commandment of God and then go against it.

 

James 4:16 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. 

 

Romans 4:15   for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

Besides in the situation it was Gods place to chastize. "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord".  

 

Did Moses excommuncate Mirriam? Did he strike her dead? Its a pretty safe bet that what she did wasn't a sin. It's also a pretty safe bet that when leaders throw their weight around and excommunicate someone for Apostasy they are actually practicing unrighteous dominion over their fellow men. Complaining about leaders or their decisions isn't a sin.

 

It wasn't until they actually sinned and made the Golden Calf that the Lord excommunicated them and made them all die in the desert after wandering for 40 years.

 

 

Heh. See above. You are not "just as much the Lords anointed as any of the 12 Apostles or even President Monson for that matter." You do not have authority for the Church as a whole. It is dangerous to you and others to presume that you do."

 

Non sequitur.  What I said was we have the exact same Authority the Melchecidek priesthood, I lack the keys to have authority over the whole church.  But Pres. Monson could hand me a key or several or even all of them at any point in time if he wanted to. In fact in a way... he already has passed me down a key.  Elders Quorum president. I hold a key to act in his and the lords behalf to my Quorum of Elders.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[Senator]

Mormon Experts are really coming out of the woodwork on Facebook. 

 

So are the apologists.

 

It's quite a spectacle!

[hope_for_things]

No I think we got the point loud and clear.  Plainly well poisoning.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

Exactly who am I trying to preemptively discredit here?  

[VideoGameJunkie]

What's everyone's facebook like? I'm having ivy league college educated fb friends denounce the new policy and utah dwelling fb friends defending the church with all their might. My opinion on the matter is to imagine the tree of life and hold to the iron rod and taste of the fruit and pay no attention to those in the great and spacious building talking crap about the church.

[Alvino]

Interestingly, I home teach a family whose dad was just sentenced to four years in State Prison for murder.  He has two young children who are still allowed to attend and will presumably be baptized when they turn eight.  So this isn't a hypothetical situation.  Why would a child who has married-gay parents be excluded from baptism while the children of a murderer are allowed to get baptized?

 

 

I guess someone could answer that since the dad isn't living with them, isn't their legal guardian (maybe), and isn't strictly living in a state of Apostasy, then there's no reason to deny the children in this case.

 

I think the relevant cases are were the parents squarely fit the provided states of apostasy, and that is still problematic. It would be better to just say with regards to all states of apostasy that children can't participate in those activities without parental permission or that of their legal guardian, although that throws the reason of "honoring your parents" out the window since now we'd be using legal guardian as the relevant factor, not a parent necessarily. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alvino

[Ares]

And the thread is closed due to Godwin's law corollary and personal remarks.

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

So is there any difference between "sin" and "apostasy"? You can say the same tings about rape, murder, fornication, or failing to provide for one's children. All go against church teachings. All would undermine foundational doctrines if tolerated.  And what exactly was the status of SSM prior to yesterday's change? What changes when the label "apostasy" is applied? The only thing that makes sense to me is that apostasy requires excommunication, so maybe this removes leeway for bishops to give lesser sanctions to ss-married members.

This is true.  If a member chooses to a porn star they are not in apostasy but same sex marriage is apostasy?   I see SSM as a violation of the law of chastity but not apostasy.  Both are serious and can get one exed but I do think there is a difference between the two.

 

From dictionary.com on apostasy ""a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."  If SSM is apostasy then perhaps any action the violates the principles of the church is apostasy.  I just don't see this.

Edited November 6, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

But that doesn't mean the two are synonymous. Fornication is sin. But not all sin is fornication. 

 

I'm with you that apostasy is sin. But where does a sin cross the line and become apostasy? Or in other words, can you give me some sins which are not apostasy? If not, then why have a different list for actions that constitute apostasy and which therefore have a different standard for church discipline; specifically, that bishops have no discretion, but must excommunicate? If all sin was apostasy, then we'd be excommunicating everyone each week. So surely there must be a difference.

 

I have already mentioned this post from Hamba Tuhan, in which he quoted Elder Scott, but I will copy and paste it here, as I do believe it addresses your question above about the distinction between apostasy (rebellion) and other forms of sin.

 

Thus reinforcing the line between weakness and open rebellion. As Elder Scott (and others) have clearly taught, 'The joyful news for anyone who desires to be rid of the consequences of poor choices is that the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy'.

 

Trying to live the law of chastity but failing -- even repeatedly -- is a matter of weakness. Embracing and celebrating sinfulness by engaging in same-sex 'marriage' is an act of open rebellion against and public rejection of all that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches and holds dear.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

This is true.  If a member chooses to a porn star they are not in apostasy but same sex marriage is apostasy?   I see SSM as a violation of the law of chastity but not apostasy.  Both are serious and can get one exed but I do think there is a difference between the two.

Obviously the Brethren disagree with you. And I believe with good reason.

 

As for your "porn star" example, such an individual depending on the circumstances could easily find him/herself excommunicated. The results would be the same. And the scenarios not all that different, depending upon how defiant the attitude of the porn star.

[JAHS]

Sorry for this but I really wanted to respond to what cinepro, on 06 Nov 2015 - 12:23 PM, said in another now locked thread, but I think it applies here as well:

 

 

cinepro, on 06 Nov 2015 - 12:23 PM, said:

Interestingly, I home teach a family whose dad was just sentenced to four years in State Prison for murder.  He has two young children who are still allowed to attend and will presumably be baptized when they turn eight.  So this isn't a hypothetical situation.  Why would a child who has married-gay parents be excluded from baptism while the children of a murderer are allowed to get baptized?

 

 

Murder is a single event that a child is not likely to condone, especially since he has probably been taught all his life that it is wrong. But the issue of gay married parents is a life-style choice that is probably being ingrained in the child's mind while growing up as something that is acceptable when it is not. That's the difference.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

The Lord being angry with some one doesn't mean what thy did was a sin. To sin you have to know something is a commandment of God and then go against it.

 

James 4:16 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. 

 

Romans 4:15   for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

Besides in the situation it was Gods place to chastize. "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord".  

 

Did Moses excommuncate Mirriam? Did he strike her dead? Its a pretty safe bet that what she did wasn't a sin. It's also a pretty safe bet that when Apostles throw their weight around and excommunicate someone for Apostasy they are actually practicing unrighteous dominion over their fellow men. Complaining about leaders or their decisions isn't a sin.

 

It wasn't until they actually sinned and made the Golden Calf that the Lord excommunicated them and made them all die in the desert after wandering for 40 years.

 

 

 

Non sequitur.  What I said was we have the exact same Authority the Melchecidek priesthood, I lack the keys to have authority over the whole church.  But Pres. Monson could hand me a key or several or even all of them at any point in time if he wanted to. In fact in a way... he already has passed me down a key.  Elders Quorum president. I hold a key to act in his and the lords behalf to my Quorum of Elders.

 

You are so far off base with these comments that I don't have the energy or the ambition to continue this conversation with you.

[carbon dioxide]

Obviously the Brethren disagree with you. And I believe with good reason.

 

As for your "porn star" example, such an individual depending on the circumstances could easily find him/herself excommunicated. The results would be the same. And the scenarios not all that different, depending upon how defiant the attitude of the porn star.

Obviously they do as they singled out SSM as apostasy.  I agree the results would be the same but I don't see why SSM is targeted as apostasy while being a porn star does not.   I look forward to an explanation from the Brethren of why SSM is singled out here as I just don't get it.

[carbon dioxide]

Any child who has been raised in a same gender cohabitation situation is likely to have been indoctrinated by the parents to accept same gender marriage as an acceptable practice. This applies whether they are stil in such a situation or not. So I think it makes sense to make sure that the child does not agree with the practice, even though they still might love their parents. Hence the waiting until they are adults, the interviews, and getting First Presidency approval. 

Ok but a child who is raised by parents who are not married but in a loving relationship might also accept that its ok to live with the opposite sex and have kids while not married.  Should they also not go through the same process?   I don't have a problem with the policy as long as its is standardized.  Right now it seems to be just picking on the SSM issue but not applying it to other situations that it probably should be applied to. 

[CV75]

 

 

 

But that doesn't mean the two are synonymous. Fornication is sin. But not all sin is fornication. 

 

I'm with you that apostasy is sin. But where does a sin cross the line and become apostasy? Or in other words, can you give me some sins which are not apostasy? If not, then why have a different list for actions that constitute apostasy and which therefore have a different standard for church discipline; specifically, that bishops have no discretion, but must excommunicate? If all sin was apostasy, then we'd be excommunicating everyone each week. So surely there must be a difference.

This is true.  If a member chooses to a porn star they are not in apostasy but same sex marriage is apostasy?   I see SSM as a violation of the law of chastity but not apostasy.  Both are serious and can get one exed but I do think there is a difference between the two.

 

From dictionary.com on apostasy ""a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."  If SSM is apostasy then perhaps any action the violates the principles of the church is apostasy.  I just don't see this.

 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

 

 “Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.”

 

There are plenty of personal and non-public sins that do not fall into that description, but same-gender marriage does. As a false institution in the eyes of the Church, those LDS members so engaged are acting in this kind of opposition and false teaching.

[Mars]

if you continue on in your profession in the adult entertainment industry because you feel the church's notions of sex, chastity, and marriage are are illogical or just something you don't believe in, then you are have effectively abandoned or renounced the beliefs you would ostensibly have had at one point.  this would be apostasy, in my mind.

[sethpayne]

if you continue on in your profession in the adult entertainment industry because you feel the church's notions of sex, chastity, and marriage are are illogical or just something you don't believe in, then you are have effectively abandoned or renounced the beliefs you would ostensibly have had at one point.  this would be apostasy, in my mind.

 

Ok.  So should your children be excommunicated too?

[JAHS]

I've come to believe that as well. When I put on my lawyer hat, the literal wording has even more problems than what I've addressed earlier. For instance, the literal wording would deny baptism to a 25 year old woman who lives with her gay father, even though she disavows gay marriage, and even though her father is no longer in a SS relationship (heck, he could be re-baptized) just so long as the father was at any point in the past in a SS relationship. I can't believe the brethren would really take things that far. The language is just really poorly drafted. 

 

I keep reading in other news articles that this new policy was "leaked" to the public. So even though it appears to be real it has not exactly been formally presented by the church to the general public. Therefore we may be hearing more about it and some clarifications by church officials in the near future.  

[Danzo]

I don't know that that's true. 

 

"The Greek noun apostasia (rebellion, abandonment, state of apostasy, defection)^[49] is found only twice in the New Testament (Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3)"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously they do as they singled out SSM as apostasy.  I agree the results would be the same but I don't see why SSM is targeted as apostasy while being a porn star does not.   I look forward to an explanation from the Brethren of why SSM is singled out here as I just don't get it.

My point is, depending on circumstances, an incident of being a porn star could easily be viewed as apostasy.

[filovirus]

The children we are talking about are ages 0-18. So yes, many (most) of them are accountable for their own sins. If you believe that baptism, confirmation, taking the sacrament, performing temple baptisms, using priesthood, etc. work to purify and sanctify people, then denying those things to these children does in fact punish them. We can hope for the day when such punishment is corrected. But just as with denying the priesthood to blacks, the present harm is still very real.

AF2 talks about Godly punishment that will be meted out at the judgement bar. All people will have the opportunity to accept the gospel, yes even after they turn 18, and most in the spirit world.

Stop trying to shoehorn AF2 into this scenario.

[Scott Lloyd]

if you continue on in your profession in the adult entertainment industry because you feel the church's notions of sex, chastity, and marriage are are illogical or just something you don't believe in, then you are have effectively abandoned or renounced the beliefs you would ostensibly have had at one point.  this would be apostasy, in my mind.

Yes. And this goes to the point I was trying to make.

[Mars]

Ok.  So should your children be excommunicated too?

 

 

what in the world are you talking about?

 

edit: you mean, is this a "HA!  gotcha!" moment where the policy is pointed at gays and not the rest of the world?  and i've unwittingly stumbled into an idea that supports this notion?

 

if so, then i would remind you as i've already done NUMEROUS times today that i think people who think the policy is pointed towards gays and silent on other matters have a fair point.

 

i also think that given the cultural context and the momentum behind the gay rights movement has challenged the church's authority on whether or not it's a sin to be gay at all - or act on it, or however your mileage varies on "mormons think being gay is a sin"

 

there is no such movement for adultery, murder, rape, fornicating adults who cohabit, etc...  so as a matter of POLICY, this appears to be an answer to a current question and not a "For all time and in all situations, these are the only ways you can be an apostate and have your kids be delayed from accessing baptism"

 

spin up movements trying to get the church to change its mind on cohabitation and i'm sure you'll see a similar reaction.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok.  So should your children be excommunicated too?

CFR that the new policy requires children in same-sex "marriages" to be excommunicated.