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

[Calm]

And the children who may have joined will most likely never join now.  How many will call their parents sinners, go to the trouble of moving out when they turn 18 and get approval from the First Presidency?  Not many if any at all.

And how many if baptized would likely later not desire to be members when they better understood the implications of what it means in reference to their parents' relationship?  Is it better for them to be baptized and reject and break that covenant or not make the covenant in the first place and hopefully if not in this life, than in the next understand the teachings of the Gospel are loving and eternally progressive and not as they thought condemning and destructive?

 

Those who truly desire and understand the implications of that desire as well as the teachings of the Gospel at the age of eight will be few, imo.  If there are some young children capable of that, then they will be capable at the age of 18 and as likely to commit to the Gospel then.  Erring on the side of caution makes sense to me in this case.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Duncan]

What if a 13 year old had wanted to be baptized for a while but he dies. Then how will he enjoy baptism? His gay parents won't be able to do his temple work. Does he really have to wait all the way to the Millennium when he could've just been baptized at age 8?

 

he'll be in good compnay if he waits till the Millenium, he won't be alone!

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see the LDS faith as hostile to gay, transgender, or polygamous marriage/parents. I like everybody, and so do the leaders of my Church. However, the church as an organized entity has rules and they require obedience to a holy lifestyle to maintain membership. The Church is in fact quite gracious and civil toward people from other lifestyles and even insists on equal access of those outside the pale to public accommodations, housing, and jobs. Tolerance is not hostility. Just because I do not want to adopt a gay or polygamous lifestyle does not mean that I am unkind or unfriendly to those who practice such lifestyles. However, I do not promote such behavior either. Get it, Teancum?!

No? The church just calls gay married people apostates and excommunicates them now and expects any adult child of such couples to renounce their parents lifestyle and seek FP permission to be baptized. That sure does not seem warm and fuzzy to me. Of course tolerance is not hostility. But intolerance may be perceived by the recipient as such.

Get it, Robert!?

Being a member of a church or other religious organization normally suggests volunary belief in and adherence to that organization's rules.  There are some religious organizations on the planet which engage in forcible or high-pressure conversion tactics.  The LDS Church does not.  We believe in being tolerant of other belief systems, even though we do not adopt them (you might want to read the LDS Articles of Faith again).

 

You make the LDS Church sound very much like the Nazi Party, which may be your wont, but it is sheer nonsense.  We believe that people can make their own choices.  It is paranoia to interpret that as you do.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Teancum]

Where did you get the idea that the gospel is warm and fuzzy?

Oh you know... That burning in the bosom thing... ;-)

[Danzo]

What if a 13 year old had wanted to be baptized for a while but he dies. Then how will he enjoy baptism? His gay parents won't be able to do his temple work. Does he really have to wait all the way to the Millennium when he could've just been baptized at age 8?

This is already quite common. Many children have to wait because their parents won't give permission(and would give permission to do temple work either if the child dies). The LDS church teaches that these children will be no worse off and will have everything someone who had the ordinance done while living has.

[The Nehor]

I do not think your statement ("repudiation of their parents") is a good faith characterization of what the Church is doing here.

 

Nor do I but I think we are getting into weird identity politics here.

 

People defend homosexuality as part of who they are, their core identity so disagreeing with it is seen as a repudiation of the person. An alcoholic often acknowledges their problem but do not usually consider it to be part of their core identity. Nor does a gossip, an adulterer, or a serial "taking the sacrament with their left hand" type.

 

This is going to stick in people's craws more. It can't be helped but I see why they are more annoyed here even though I am convinced they are wrong to do so.

[ALarson]

How can children be apostates when they aren't baptized?  Doesn't one have to be baptized first?  The headline doesn't make sense, imo.

I agree.  Pretty bad and misleading headline.

[The Nehor]

Oh you know... That burning in the bosom thing... ;-)

 

Well, if you thought that was the whole gospel I have some bad news for you.

[Teancum]

Wow!  How quickly this thread devolved to criticism of Jesus Christ Himself.

 

Is it possible, in your view, for the Savior to be right about this, and for knee-jerk, worldly responses to be in error?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Oh stop preaching. I was being tongue in cheek.

[smac97]

Oh stop preaching. I was being tongue in cheek.

 

Okay.  It did not appear to be tongue-in-cheek.  In fact, your criticism of the Savior lined up with much of what you have said in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

No? The church just calls gay married people apostates and excommunicates them now and expects any adult child of such couples to renounce their parents lifestyle and seek FP permission to be baptized. That sure does not seem warm and fuzzy to me. Of course tolerance is not hostility. But intolerance may be perceived by the recipient as such.

Get it, Robert!?

And if they were members of the church they are apostates. Why exactly is accurately labeling someone a bad thing? When did the truth become such a horrible thing. Edited November 6, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Calm]

It is certainly correctable, but I also think we treat it more as a detour or misstep than a repudiation of the whole plan.

That would depend on if they rejected marriage in and of itself.  Usually if people are parents that have stayed together 8 years (long enough for the child to grow to baptism age) and haven't been married, it is more of being ummarried in name only.  If the unwed parents are really one parent and the 12th partner since the chld was born and the parent was expecting to have 12 more by the time the kid went to college...then I think it is much more than a detour or misstep.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Teancum]

It would be nice to see this discussion proceed in good faith.  A solid place to start would be to avoid significant distortions of what the Church is actually doing.  You are using loaded and inaccurate terminology ("Why make person repudiate their parents...") to describe the Church's requirement that the child "accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage".

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I think I am proceeding in reasonable and fair discussion. That you don't like what I am saying does not make it in bad faith. And I have modified my stance to be renounce their lifestyle. Better?

[carbon dioxide]

Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions?  If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync.  Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are. 

[The Nehor]

Both are offense that can lead to Telestial inheritance.  I guess in the end it really does not matter which was a little worse since the unrepentant parties all land in the same kingdom.

 

I imagine the fires of hell are hotter in cases where you deliberately wound others but maybe that is just the vengeful part of me taking over. I tend to see sins of malice as much more damning then sins of an animal nature like gluttony, sexual sin, simple greed, and the like. 

[Teancum]

 

You make the LDS Church sound very much like the Nazi Party, which may be your wont, but it is sheer nonsense.  We believe that people can make their own choices.  It is paranoia to interpret that as you do.

Oh come now. I did no such thing. You know Robert I am trying harder to be polite and less strident in my posts. You have lectured me on this before, I think I am doing it here. At least I am trying. The same courtesy from you would be appreciated.

[JLHPROF]

Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions?  If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync.  Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are. 

 

Now you're seeing my issue with it.

There is no consistency of standard evident in this policy.  That alone makes it morally questionable.

[Teancum]

Okay.  It did not appear to be tongue-in-cheek.  In fact, your criticism of the Savior lined up with much of what you have said in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

That's because you disagree with my view on this issue.

[Teancum]

Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions?  If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync.  Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are.

My point as well.

[Calm]

Thanks, I laughed.

And I am ticked I ran out of points awhile back.  Hope I remember to come back to up that total.  

 

Shame I can't do more than one per post.  I think being the highest post count I should get that privilege.  It isn't fair I don't get something extra for all my hard work.

[Calm]

I was talking to my father (who is not a Catholic) the other day and we both agreed that one thing about Jesus is that he makes everyone uncomfortable.  If you're not at least slightly uncomfortable by Jesus and His teachings then you are probably disregarding something He said and rationalizing something you do.

 

So yeah, I agree with this.  While the Gospel is the "good news" and gives so much hope and peace, it shouldn't be misconstrued as being warm and fuzzy.

 

C.S. Lewis got it right (oh, man, if he had only listened to his friend Tolkien and become a Catholic! ) in the Narnia books when he said that Aslan wasn't tame and wasn't safe.

 

This is one reason why I dislike the WWJD movement.  Jesus would probably do something that would rattle the security of those around Him... kind of like the rich young man, and the pharisees, and even His own disciples sometimes (often!), so we shouldn't try to pretend to know what He would do.

 

(sorry for the tangent)

I think it is the core of the topic myself.  The Church is doing something that makes people uncomfortable.

 

We need to look why it does make us uncomfortable and whether or not that is on us or on the Church (for those of us for whom "the Church" is the LDS one ).

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions?  If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync.  Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are. 

Although historically this has been legal marriage under the common law.  In the USA that is no longer the case, and the change in our legal system took place largely during the 20th century, much of it during my lifetime.  You may be too young to recall common law marriage, but it took effect simply by cohabiting for a certain length of time.  Indeed, throughout most of human history mere cohabitation constituted legal marriage (except for the nobility, which always had pomp and circumstance).

[carbon dioxide]

A number of prophets have been known for certain things during their lives.  Spencer W Kimball for missionary work.  Ezra Taft Benson for the Book of Mormon, and Hinckley for temples.  I fear that Monson is going to be known for the gay marriage issue.  I hope that is not the case.  I support the Church in its position on gay marriage but it seems to spend too much time on this one issue when there are many other issues that are just as important that do not get nearly the attention by the Church.  I hope after this the Church will direct its focus on other issues.  I find this policy rather harsh even though it will affect very few people but the constant drip drip on gay marriage by the Church is not helping it in my opinion.

[The Nehor]

Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions?  If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync.  Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are. 

 

Nope, and I disagree that the policies need to sync. I would have no objection to the policy changing as you suggest but again, the policy is to protect the child not to determine how sinful the parent is and be "fair" to the parent about how naughty they are. Most children in nonmarried homes are not taught principles about marriage opposed to the gospel. A child might be mildly confused if he knows his parents are not married (many do not know) but it is unlikely to put the child in the middle of a tug of war between the gospel and their parents.

 

If the world changes to a more anti-marriage stance this may need to change but I don't see a need for it right now. Then again I don't get revelation for the world either so we can wait and let the apostles and prophets sort it out as needed.

 

Now you're seeing my issue with it.

There is no consistency of standard evident in this policy.  That alone makes it morally questionable.

 

It is not really a moral issue. It is a practical one designed to prevent harm.

[Gray]

This seems pretty harsh. Looks like with this policy and the adding same sex marriage to the definition of apostasy the church is doubling down agains same sex attraction.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership

 

A very unfortunate policy. But on the bright side I think a harsh policy like this will actually hasten the day that gay couples and their families are accepted by the church. I think the backlash (internally and externally) on this will be enormous, IMO.