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

[Danzo]

Most of these bullet points are incorrect. 

 

can you be specific?

[Scott Lloyd]

what in the world are you talking about?

He's running with the rampant social media distortion that because baptism of children in same-sex "marriage" households must be delayed, the children in effect are "excommunicted." Or some such nonsense.

[sethpayne]

He's running with the rampant social media distortion that because baptism of children in same-sex "marriage" households must be delayed, the children in effect are "excommunicated." Or some such nonsense.

 

Hey Scott -- if we are to be logically consistent we would have to excommunicate the children of apostates, no?  Then allow them rebaptism at 18.  That would be a consistent policy.

Edited November 6, 2015 by sethpayne

[Mars]

we would if we were saying that any member child today whose parents are gay are to be excommunicated forthwith.  but we're not.  i'm guessing you knew that, though.

 

ridiculous twisting of the policy, sethpayne.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars

[Gray]

Your habit of denying something is revelation if it is not written down and printed within a leather cover is shortsighted and unwise. And it is not binding on others.

 

I would just bring out this Harold B Lee quote once again:

 

 

 

 

If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

[rockpond]

I don't know if this will help or not but think of the the conflict of loyalties which confront a child with gay parents and the teachings of the church on the subject.   Since it has long been the policy of the church to not be disruptive to the family the baptism of under age children from a same sex couple is at high risk for causing disruption to that family.

 

So we're protecting children of gay parents from ... us.

 

You know one way we could avoid being disruptive to families with a gay parent... love.

[rockpond]

Seems you’ve calmed down awfully quick!

 

It is good that you understand the addition of same-gender marriage to the list of member activities that apostasy refers to. Children unfortunately always get caught up in their parents’ difficulties, one way or another. The Church will not be a referee between parents nor get between the parents and how they raise their children.

 

In a case where children are unavoidably indoctrinated against Church teachings and her most sacred covenant by precept and example, and in concert with public and political controversy, special care must be taken before they  make sacred commitments. It would be irresponsible not to.

 

No... I am still very riled up... about the policy directed at kids.  I started THIS thread on the definition of apostasy change and I've always been calm about that.

 

If children were really at home being "unavoidably indoctrinated against Church teachings" it is unlikely that those parents would have given permission to be baptized.  So this was a problem that didn't need to be solved.  And yet, the Church decided to call out gay parents in its policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott -- if we are to be logically consistent we would have to excommunicate the children of apostates, no?  Then allow them rebaptism at 18.  That would be a consistent policy.

What Mars said.

 

But again, my CFR stands: Where, under the new policy, is it required that children -- any children -- be excommunicated?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

The policy as written does not allow for any latitude. Even when the kid turns 18 there is no latitude for a bishop to approve. It has to go all the way to the first presidency.

 

All policies have latitude, the handbook is not self enforcing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would just bring out this Harold B Lee quote once again:

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

And I will counter with this scriptural passage:

 

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

 

By the way, that is in the Standard Works.

 

And under your logic, we must unavoidably assume that nothing the Brethren have ever uttered since the last revelation was added to the Doctrine and Covenants has ever been given "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

 

Of course, that would be an absurd assumption.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Your habit of denying something is revelation if it is not written down and printed within a leather cover is shortsighted and unwise. And it is not binding on others.

 

Your habit of claiming something is revelation if it is not written down, shared, or even identified as revelation is shortsighted and unwise. And it is not binding on others.

[Scott Lloyd]

No... I am still very riled up... about the policy directed at kids.  I started THIS thread on the definition of apostasy change and I've always been calm about that.

 

If children were really at home being "unavoidably indoctrinated against Church teachings" it is unlikely that those parents would have given permission to be baptized.  So this was a problem that didn't need to be solved.  And yet, the Church decided to call out gay parents in its policy.

It is not entirely out of the realm of likelihood that some unscrupulous parents would use their minor children as pawns in a scheme to embarrass or attack the Church. As someone wrote on a blog I looked at today, the policy protects both the children and the Church from that eventuality.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your habit of claiming something is revelation if it is not written down, shared, or even identified as revelation is shortsighted and unwise. And it is not binding on others.

This makes no sense. The above is not parallel to what I said.

 

In short, acknowledging that not everything outside of the Standard Works is revelation is not tantamount to saying that nothing outside the Standard Works is.

[rockpond]

It is not entirely out of the realm of likelihood that some unscrupulous parents would use their minor children as pawns in a scheme to embarrass or attack the Church. As someone wrote on a blog I looked at today, the policy protects both the children and the Church from that eventuality.

 

Yes, let's protect the church from gay parents willing to let their kids get baptized.  That sounds important enough to enact this policy.

 

As for protecting the kids... it only protects them from us, the Church.

[rockpond]

This makes no sense. The above is not parallel to what I said.

 

In short, acknowledging that not everything outside of the Standard Works is revelation is not tantamount to saying that nothing outside the Standard Works is.

 

Tell me Scott, was this policy revealed from the Lord to the prophet?

[mnn727]

The way this is worded bothers me, the 18 year old will need to "Disavow" -- what exactly does that mean?

 

DW's sister is a lesbian and lives with her same sex partner, they've been together longer than DW and I have been married.

We've stayed with them (they live out of the country now), they've stayed with us, we treat them just like any other couple and any other family member.

What does 'disavow' actually mean? There are some dictionary definitions that say that we shouldn't have anything to do with them -- that's not going to happen. To say that the child must disavow their parents really does not sit well with me.

 

I think this is a very slippery slope the Church is descending.

 

* * * 

 

BTW this hit the local morning news this morning.

Edited November 6, 2015 by mnn727

[Buckeye]

All policies have latitude, the handbook is not self enforcing.

 

Not really. The handbook says that anyone who enters a SSM is in apostasy and must be excommunicated. There is no leeway. A bishop who says "well, I think I'll pass in this instance" will quickly be corrected by his SP or, if needed, removed and another bishop put in his place who will comply with the handbook.

[Buckeye]

The way this is worded bothers me, the 18 year old will need to "Disavow" -- what exactly does that mean?

 

DW's sister is a lesbian and lives with her same sex partner, they've been together longer than DW and I have been married.

We've stayed with them (they live out of the country now), they've stayed with us, we treat them just like any other couple and any other family member.

What does 'disavow' actually mean? There are some dictionary definitions that say that we shouldn't have anything to do with them -- that's not going to happen. To say that the child must disavow their parents really does not sit well with me.

 

I think this is a very slippery slope the Church is descending.

 

To be accurate, the policy says that the child must disavow SSM - that relationship - not the child's relationship with her parent.

 

That said, it is odd that this requirement is placed on a child of a SS parent, but not on other members. It was only earlier this year when Elder Christofferson clarified that members could support civil SSM and maintain temple recommends so long as they did no actively oppose the church. So my take is that "disavow" means that the child must affirm that SSM is contrary to church teachings.

[Zakuska]

Speaking of Porn Stars... I wonder if the church would excommunicate President Monson for pulling an Isaiah.

 

Isaiah 20

 1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;

 2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

 4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

 5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.

 6 And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?

 

He was a nudist for three years at the Lords command. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Tell me Scott, was this policy revealed from the Lord to the prophet?

Tell me, rockpond, is it your contention that the Brethren have never uttered anything "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" since Sept. 30, 1978, the last occasion when content was added to the scriptural canon? That they had never made such utterances in the numerous decades between that time and Oct. 3, 1918, the date of the latest revelation to be added prior to that time?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

More and more, I'm wondering whether some of those shedding public tears over the supposed plight of the children are really so much concerned about the children as they are that their own friends entrenched in homosexual behavior now find it less likely than ever that their favorite sin will one day be declared unsinful and that same-sex "marriage" will gradually be assimilated willy-nilly into Mormon culture.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Not really. The handbook says that anyone who enters a SSM is in apostasy and must be excommunicated. There is no leeway. A bishop who says "well, I think I'll pass in this instance" will quickly be corrected by his SP or, if needed, removed and another bishop put in his place who will comply with the handbook.

A disciplinary council is mandatory, not necessarily excommunication. That's an important distinction.

 

There is always variability of enforcement of any policy and this would be no different. A lot will depend on the Bishop and SP and their relationship with each other.

 

The church needs to do a LOT of clarifying on this policy before leaders start trying to implement.

[Teancum]

Entering into same-gender "marriage" is apostasy. It is directly defying the teachings of the Church on this subject. If it were to be tolerated, it would undermine foundational doctrines which are based on the family unit being the basic unit of the Church and the people of God, both here and in the eternities.

 

 

As is two heterosexuals cohabiting outside of marriage. To be consistent the church should define this as apostasy as well.

[ksfisher]

I would just bring out this Harold B Lee quote once again:

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

Does the fact that President Lee's quote is not in the standard works mean that the quote itself is speculation?

[Scott Lloyd]

As is two heterosexuals cohabiting outside of marriage. To be consistent the church should define this as apostasy as well.

It probably is under some circumstances.