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

[BlueDreams]

I haven't posted too much on any of the threads about what I've been experiencing emotionally. Anger and fear aren't really the emotions....more like shock, denial, and some queasiness. Though it may not look like it from the 1-2 posts I have made, I'm actually more trying to figure out what and who this will actually cover... As well as waiting to see what this will really entail and how it will really play out.  

 

I don't mind anger too much....I feel we ignore it too often and give it a bad rap. Staying in anger isn't healthy and leads to bitterness....but bottling it also ain't good. It leaves us emotionally stunted. And this anger, that I've seen from people....it's probably more about grief. It'll most likely pass into other avenues, but grief is grief. I will follow God off a cliff if He told me to jump....I have followed him with things that seemed absolutely crazy to me. Often these have led to pain as well as joy and pain again. Faith cannot remove some bitter cups.

 

With luv,

BD 

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, you need to learn some manners.  You can answer a question without belittling the questioner.  Thanks anyway.  I will remember that you require perfection.

I apologize, that was not my intention.

 

When I read a post it is as if a checklist appears in my head and I am scanning for issues with the post and then I list them and often the heat of what is wrong with the post overrides my "nice" button and I go for the jugular.

 

I really need to do better at that.  Sincerely I apologize.  I am not even at the point of "requiring perfection", as my wife often points out, correctly,  I am not even civilized yet.  It's this pit bull thing that I do.

[mfbukowski]

It would be eminently cruel to expect one to accept and live up to covenants with the odds thus stacked against him in terms of a nurturing environment.

 

I look at our own family situation. We are far from perfect, and I'm probably the most flawed of us all, but I recognize that our eldest son is in the mission field now largely as a result of the influence he received from us. Would he have fared so well without it? I strong doubt it, even with the programs and classes of the Church acting as a backstop.

Yep that's exactly the issue!  Being raised like that could turn the child against BOTH his parents for putting him in that position AND the church.

[jwhitlock]

I haven't posted too much on any of the threads about what I've been experiencing emotionally. Anger and fear aren't really the emotions....more like shock, denial, and some queasiness. Though it may not look like it from the 1-2 posts I have made, I'm actually more trying to figure out what and who this will actually cover... As well as waiting to see what this will really entail and how it will really play out.

 

I don't mind anger too much....I feel we ignore it too often and give it a bad rap. Staying in anger isn't healthy and leads to bitterness....but bottling it also ain't good. It leaves us emotionally stunted. And this anger, that I've seen from people....it's probably more about grief. It'll most likely pass into other avenues, but grief is grief. I will follow God off a cliff if He told me to jump....I have followed him with things that seemed absolutely crazy to me. Often these have led to pain as well as joy and pain again. Faith cannot remove some bitter cups.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

That's a good place to start. Figure out what the real world impact of the policy is (not hypothetical situations) where people are concerned, sort out the misinformation and discard it, and then petition the Lord to understand why the policy is really in place.

[mfbukowski]

By that definition of voting then none of the Senators on the house floor vote either.

 

"We propose this new bill be made law. Those in favor. say I. Those opposed. Say nay.

Note that even with your example, there is a choice of being in favor or opposed to a product (the legislation) as opposed to the person's position.

 

The church equivalent would be "Brother Jones proposes that YM camp this year will be at XYZ National Park. Those in favor say aye, ...."

 

That is not the case in sustaining.  Sustaining is about supporting a person in his job, not about what the person has decided a given policy or action should be.

 

The issue in the sustaining is not a proposed ACTION but the PERSON PROPOSING THE ACTION or policy.

 

In the senate it would be more like deciding if the senator should be allowed to keep his job, not a vote on what he proposed.  Huge difference.

[mfbukowski]

You obviously missed my comparison (to busy twisting it to fit into your worldview?)....I am talking about the child of a couple who have never been married nor plan to marry; their children would not be denied baptism or the priesthood, even though the church teaches strongly against that lifestyle, just as they do against SSM. The church essentially allows the hetero, unmarried couple to have it "both ways" as you say, but not the SSM couple.

 

Agree, this is not rocket science.

No it's not but you still got it wrong.

 

In your case, making the decision to have children "outside of wedlock" is a decision like gay parents, on that we agree, it is a decision to live a lifestyle opposed to a church lifestyle while still affirming, for unknown reasons in your strange hypothetical argument, that the children should be baptized LDS. 

 

"We agree that it is ok to have children outside of wedlock, but we still want our kids to be LDS."   Ridiculous.  Just as ridiculous as living a ssm and wanting your kids to be LDS.  A wise Bishop might well call them on it on the same grounds and suggest the children NOT be baptized for the same reasons.

 

Does the church have to detail every possible bad decision parents might make to have a policy for each one?

 

One could even make the point trivially- a couple who believes in social drinking but wants the kids to learn the Word of Wisdom.

 

My point stands, and it appears that in fact you re-iterated it for me and given me a couple of more examples similar to the church decision on why children of ssm should not be baptized.

Edited November 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So if a parent wants to maintain a presence in the church and gives permission for their child to be baptized than why would they be indoctrinating their child against the church. That just doesn't make sense.

They are saying "do as I say but not as I do".

 

Does that help?  Their actions "indoctrinate" the child to behaviors in conflict to church policy while they affirm both the church and the policy.  That sends a conflicting and confusing message to the child.

[Jeanne]

I apologize, that was not my intention.

 

When I read a post it is as if a checklist appears in my head and I am scanning for issues with the post and then I list them and often the heat of what is wrong with the post overrides my "nice" button and I go for the jugular.

 

I really need to do better at that.  Sincerely I apologize.  I am not even at the point of "requiring perfection", as my wife often points out, correctly,  I am not even civilized yet.  It's this pit bull thing that I do.

Apology accepted.

[Analytics]

The national news is having a heyday with this.

If the Church teaches that same sex marriage is so evil that the children of a parent in a same sex relationship must "specifically disavow" same sex marriage before they can be baptized, the church should be consistent and excommucate all members who don't specifically disavow it. Most people have friends or loved ones in same sex marriages. Why are the children of such people the only ones required to specifically disavow it?

[Calm]

"In the real world, baptizing children of parents who are not committed themselves to the church never really works out."

But there are going to be a number of children who have a believing parent divorced from another parent who has gone on to marry or be in a same sex relationship. When custody is shared...and maybe even when not depending on how the policy is going to implemented, these children appear not to be able to be baptized even when mostly living in a supportive environment and in many cases with the same sex parent being supportive of their church activity as well.

So it is not a case of this policy only applying to children who lack support at home to be active.

[Calm]

Again, under the policy as expressed in the OP, custody does not matter. The policy kicks in simply because the child has a parent in a SS relationship. And so yes, there are thousands of such youth in the church. Probably 10s of thousands.

Just got back so sorry if this has been pointed out....

And it is not clear if there is any problem if a parent is homosexually active, s/he can be dating...just not living with someone or married to them.

There are some definite details that are going to be needed to explained and probably revised.

[PeterPear]

If I were still serving as a bishop this is a policy I would ignore. Refusing to allow baby blessings, baptisms, ordinations etc solely because of the child's parent's SS activity is a horrible, hurtful policy. I honestly expect to see some minor alterations to the policy that will allow local leaders greater flexibility and perhaps "grandfather" in or in other ways limit the restrictions from the way they are currently stated.

 

The policy is overly broad and sloppy.

I'm glad your still not serving as a Bishop. You'd probably get ex-d for ignoring policy by the First Presidency and end up sealed to the devil. (Alma 34:35) There are plenty of MEN in this Church who will and do uphold the First Presidency. Whiners, beware.

[sethpayne]

 

The parents are the ones introducing the conflict, not the gospel

 

I respectfully disagree, mfbukowski.  It is precisely the institutional Church that causes conflict when someone of sincere heart and a desire to be baptized is turned away -- not because of anything about them -- but simply because of their parents.

 

How many staunch Church members today were baptized in their teens?  Sometimes at odds with their parents?  I know several.  And this policy will prevent any such teenagers who happen to be children of gay parents that blessing/opportunity. 

Edited November 7, 2015 by sethpayne

[jwhitlock]

"In the real world, baptizing children of parents who are not committed themselves to the church never really works out."

But there are going to be a number of children who have a believing parent divorced from another parent who has gone on to marry or be in a same sex relationship. When custody is shared...and maybe even when not depending on how the policy is going to implemented, these children appear not to be able to be baptized even when mostly living in a supportive environment and in many cases with the same sex parent being supportive of their church activity as well.

So it is not a case of this policy only applying to children who lack support at home to be active.

 

Again, how often is this going to actually happen in the real world? We can create all kinds of hypothetical situations, but how often does this kind of thing really happen?

 

One of the impacts of SSM is that judges in divorce cases seem to be increasingly unwilling to take into consideration any evidence that a homosexual lifestyle is going to negatively impact children in custody arrangements. Because of this, it appears that more divorce cases involving a gay spouse are not being settled amicably than before. This leads to parents who are constantly conflicting with each other, and children do not thrive well in such environments - nor does their church participation thrive.

 

Even in cases where the divorce is amicable because the non-gay spouse is supportive of the gay ex-spouse, it is hard to believe that both parents in such cases would want their children to be aligned with a church that is so specifically opposed to SSM. Again, the children are not going to thrive in their church participation in such cases.

 

Even with all that, I don't think any of that (whether children would thrive or not) was the real rationalization behind the policy. It has never been good policy to baptize any children where the parents themselves are not committed to the church. Such children very rarely remain active as they get older.

 

It still appears to me that the situations being brought up against the policy are going to be relatively rare. I suspect that the leaders of the church recognized that, and felt that the FP review would be adequate to account for the very small number of actual requests for baptism. So I look for other reasons for the policy.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to try to rationalize or attack the policy on either side based on hypothetical situations. In effect, it's barking up the wrong tree. We have to look elsewhere to understand why the policy has been put in place and worded the way it is.

[Calm]

 

I have first hand witnessed and counseled children of non-member parents.  And even in the best circumstances (open parental support of their choice) the challenges faced by some caused them to drift away from that covenant.

Anyone have stats on the activity level of kids from part member families?

[JAHS]

"In the real world, baptizing children of parents who are not committed themselves to the church never really works out."

But there are going to be a number of children who have a believing parent divorced from another parent who has gone on to marry or be in a same sex relationship. When custody is shared...and maybe even when not depending on how the policy is going to implemented, these children appear not to be able to be baptized even when mostly living in a supportive environment and in many cases with the same sex parent being supportive of their church activity as well.

So it is not a case of this policy only applying to children who lack support at home to be active.

 

I think in these limited number of such cases, is where the revelation comes into play at the local level, where Bishops and Stake Presidents can use their god given powers of discernment to determine exactly how to apply the policy in a way that is best for the child.

Many people seem to be thinking of all the possible ways this policy can fail rather than how it can work. WIth patience and time any chinks in the policy will be worked out with the will of God always in mind. 

[Calm]

    

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.

  Perhaps this was not the finalized form, but a rough draft.

I agree the church is infallible.  But society's reaction to church policy is not the measuring stick for determining that.

I think you mean fallible, not infallible.

[sethpayne]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. We baptize children who are in family that are part member or any other family environment. I do not support SSM, but children are being denied membership because of the sins of their parents?

 

Amen and amen.

 

Matthew 19:14

[VideoGameJunkie]

I got baptized and my dad's not a member.

[jwhitlock]

Amen and amen.

 

Matthew 19:14

 

Amen to what? What Pa Pa posted did not accurately reflect what the policy said.

[Storm Rider]

I read a post today on a social network from a couple who attended the same ward some fifteen years ago.  At that time they were quite active.  We still stay in contact to some degree via a social network.  Over time I have noticed that they do not wear their temple garments, posts have become very liberal, and it would appear they have left the church some time ago.  I have never asked about their relationship with the Church and have never remarked on their pictures and the lack of modest clothing or the absence of garments - that is not the caliber of our relationship and it is none of my business.  

 

What surprised me is that they mentioned the current status of gay couples and their children was causing a huge upheaval among their gay friends.  One couple with two mothers was heart broken because their daughter, age seven, had been planning on her baptism when she turned eight years old.  Now, the child would be devastated when they had to tell her she could no longer become a member of the Church.  Their gay friends are emotionally destroyed by the Church's actions.

 

What puzzles me is that I don't know any gay couples, i.e. married gay couples, that care what the Church of Jesus Christ is doing vis-a-vis marriage, baptisms, etc.  Have I missed something or do we have a lot of gay married couples faithfully attending church and supporting their children in learning about Church teachings, doctrines, etc.?  There seems to be this huge disconnect between reality and what people are trying to make me believe.  Am I blind or are people using this to create an emotional story out of whole cloth?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

I got baptized and my dad's not a member.

 

Was your dad gay and living with another man?  If not, why should you have not been allowed to be baptized?  Please note, this is a new policy.  Unless you got baptized last week it does not really apply to your circumstances or anyone else's. 

[bluebell]

Perhaps this was not the finalized form, but a rough draft.

I think you mean fallible, not infallible.

Yep!! Better go fix that!

[jwhitlock]

I read a post today on a social network from a couple that I used to attend the same ward with some fifteen years ago.  At that time they were quite active.  We still stay in contact to some degree via a social network.  Over time I have noticed that they do not wear their temple garments, posts have become very liberal, and it would appear they have not left the church some time ago.  I have never asked about their relationship with the Church and have never remarked on their pictures and the lack of modest clothing or the absence of garments - that is not the caliber of our relationship and it is none of my business.  

 

What surprised me is that they mentioned that the current status of gay couples and their children was causing a huge upheaval among their gay friends.  One couple with two mothers was heart broken because their daughter, age seven, had been planning on her baptism when she turned eight years old.  Now, the child would be devastated when they had to tell her she could no longer become a member of the Church.  They that their gay friends are emotionally destroyed by the Church's actions.

 

What puzzle's me is that I don't know any gay couples, i.e. married gay couples, that care what the Church of Jesus Christ is doing vis-a-vis marriage, baptisms, etc.  Have I missed something and do we have a lot of gay married couples faithfully attending church and supporting their children in learning about Church teachings, doctrines, etc.?  There seems to be this huge disconnect between reality and what people are trying to make me believe.  Am I blind or are people using this to create an emotional story out of whole cloth?

 

Bingo.

[JAHS]

I read a post today on a social network from a couple that I used to attend the same ward with some fifteen years ago.  At that time they were quite active.  We still stay in contact to some degree via a social network.  Over time I have noticed that they do not wear their temple garments, posts have become very liberal, and it would appear they have not left the church some time ago.  I have never asked about their relationship with the Church and have never remarked on their pictures and the lack of modest clothing or the absence of garments - that is not the caliber of our relationship and it is none of my business.  

 

What surprised me is that they mentioned that the current status of gay couples and their children was causing a huge upheaval among their gay friends.  One couple with two mothers was heart broken because their daughter, age seven, had been planning on her baptism when she turned eight years old.  Now, the child would be devastated when they had to tell her she could no longer become a member of the Church.  They that their gay friends are emotionally destroyed by the Church's actions.

 

What puzzle's me is that I don't know any gay couples, i.e. married gay couples, that care what the Church of Jesus Christ is doing vis-a-vis marriage, baptisms, etc.  Have I missed something and do we have a lot of gay married couples faithfully attending church and supporting their children in learning about Church teachings, doctrines, etc.?  There seems to be this huge disconnect between reality and what people are trying to make me believe.  Am I blind or are people using this to create an emotional story out of whole cloth?

I guess we're both blind. I have been a member for 60 years and have never met nor even heard of some of these situations that people are complaining and worrying about. Even if they do exist I am confident they will be handled with respect to the parents and well being of the child.

Oh and by the way I live in the Bay area of California.

Edited November 7, 2015 by JAHS