stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 So he was married to a woman one day, had kids with her, and then woke up in bed married to a man without any idea how that happened? I think that was the plot to an Arnold Schwarzenegger film I saw once. No.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I didn't say the guy left his spouse and partner for a gay partner. I didn't say their was a custody battle. You jumped to conclusions when you said, initially:They were not dysfunctional in any sense of the word that I know. They were very functional until, as it happens this past week, when the wife empowered by the policy change turned dysfunctional. It's really unfair for you to jump to conclusions about people you don't know.That's all I'm saying. And yes it made me upset, because I know and love these people and did not bring their story here for any other reason but to talk about one incident not for someone to jump to conclusions about them. Your original post on the matter:This policy is nothing if not destructive to children who have a gay parent and their families. I heard from a friend last night. he is gay and has children from a previous marriage. The parents have gotten along quite well and have done well by the kids, overall. But since the policy the ex-wife has decided to seek full custody. She is very upset with my friend and won't talk to him, after a bit of a blow up. She indicated she's so upset that her kids will never feel like they can renounce their father because they are too close to him. That means they will not be baptized, one is already baptized, and her fear is they will leave the Church. Her response seems to be to use her position to leverage the kid's against him. The step-father, apparently chimed in with some glowing sounding attacks as well. He later heard from his oldest daughter (around 10 as I recall) who was very distraught about the anger her mother and step-father have been expressing towards her dad. Previously they had nothing but great things to say about him. It sounds like the mother and step-father aren't handling this well at all. They are really switching from the previous synergistic cooperation to outright hostility. This policy seems to be hurting these kids right now and will likely cause more problems for them in the future. I'm really not sure how a serious face can be used to say this policy is set to protect kids. I'm still going with dysfunctional cause this sure ain't the Brady Bunch. Your presentation that everything was hunky dory until the new policy was announced is naive at best. Edited November 11, 2015 by KevinG 1
ksfisher Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) CFR that the church considers those entering into same sex marriage as "the most egreagious [sic] sinners to have ever walk [sic] the face of the earth (worse than Sodom and Gamorrah [sic] itself [sic]." Zakuska, Just a reminder that I've asked for a CFR on this claim of yours as to how the church considers same sex marriage. Please provide a CFR or retract your statement. Edited November 11, 2015 by ksfisher
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Yet you felt perfectly OK with dropping their business into this discussion as an example of how the brethren's policy update is destroying lives. Yeah. OK. I didn't drop their business. I left it pretty anonymous. No one knows them. But that didn't stop me from being displeased when you started assuming things about them in order to condemn them. Maybe I'll go delete it, since you are taking advantage of it.
carbon dioxide Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I suspect that the church will be sued in the future for not allowing same sex marriage in the temple. -stephenIn America one can sue anyone for any reason. That does not mean one would win the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would be thrown out of court. As long as the First Amendment exists, the LDS Church would never be forced to allow SSM in the temple. I would suspect that if the government was to do away with the First Amendment and the government forced it, many LDS people would arm themselves and protect the temple against government interference. 1
Jeanne Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 The Nehor: Nehor, Joseph Smith must be a Calvanist then... In reguards to this discussion we are having and metting out the Justice and "Love" of God like our bretheren are doing to gays and their children right now. Joseph Smith had this to say.... Why don't we let God be the judge and quit making "narrow, contracted notions" about who's marriage is better than others, and which type of Marriage God likes best? Because lets face it God has called prophets with some pretty scary back stories through out history. We would do well to follow a Proverb of the Prophet Joseph Smith (our founder) as a church: This can be found in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and on the Church Website:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiIha_LoonJAhUCmYgKHSvHDQI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fmanual%2Fteachings-joseph-smith%2Fchapter-35%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNGrdUEJqP5xvwKI9CjsmZgkOv5DcQ&sig2=4M-fWAFWFVUFoBLiq9Jzvw If the Brethren would quit making stupid policy, laws and hoops that we have to jump threw to make it to heaven we all could make it heaven even gays in SS Marriages. Because the Brethern have made SSM a sin now. The blood of all the Gays who shall be excommunicated from the church because of this policy will be on the hands of the bretheren. They will have to answer to the Lord on why they didn't love their Gay bretheren enough to no define what they are doing as sin. Zabuska..there is a key word you have put forth that is so needed...What happened to mercy? Thank you.
Senator Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 In America one can sue anyone for any reason. That does not mean one would win the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would be thrown out of court. As long as the First Amendment exists, the LDS Church would never be forced to allow SSM in the temple. I would suspect that if the government was to do away with the First Amendment and the government forced it, many LDS people would arm themselves and protect the temple against government interference. Waco-2 2
Bob Crockett Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 "Grab your torch and pich forks lets round up some gays and their Children! Lets shun them and keep them out of our churches until their 18." I hope that from whomever you got that quote sues his high school for an aberrant education. 4
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I didn't drop their business. I left it pretty anonymous. No one knows them. But that didn't stop me from being displeased when you started assuming things about them in order to condemn them. Maybe I'll go delete it, since you are taking advantage of it. I didn't name them. I'm still leaving them anonymous. Your own telling of the story demonstrates clearly dysfunctional behaviors. I have assumed nothing about them. Did they divorce? Did the father leave the family for a gay partner? Did the mother and step father react badly to the new policy? Has it become a wedge issue? You can clarify if any of those things is wrong. But please don't use the story to bolster your narrative and threaten to delete it because I see something different that isn't quite as flattering about the result of homosexual partnerships dissolving family covenants. Beside I though you agreed to disagree? I'm disagreeing. 2
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Your original post on the matter: I'm still going with dysfunctional cause this sure ain't the Brady Bunch. Your presentation that everything was hunky dory until the new policy was announced is naive at best. You simply highlighted the dysfunction I said came about after the policy, but your initial claim was "already so dysfunctional". I didn't say everything was hunky dory. My life isn't hunky dory and yet I wouldn't say me and mine are dysfunctional. For some reason you're reading far more into it. I've lose interest as to why. I can't understand why you would do that and stand by it.
carbon dioxide Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 The mass resignations are a result of the Church's handbook change. Not the legalization of gay marriage. What would be funny is if the church in a couple months decides to reverse this policy and comes out with a policy that those who left the Church over this must wait 10 years before they can be a member again. The church can't make it appear that joining and leaving the Church can be as easy and signing up for Dish or Direct TV or Costco.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Zabuska..there is a key word you have put forth that is so needed...What happened to mercy? Thank you. I would not consider letting my children eat Halloween candy until they barfed merciful. No matter how much they screamed and pouted when I limited the use of said candy to a few pieces a day and after dinner at that. Just as God has decreed sexual intercourse to be used in places and times and with people He has proscribed, and forbidden the use of it outside those bounds for our own blessing. Blaming the brethren for clarifying that same sex couplings are not for the eternal benefit of mankind, for the screaming and pouting of those who want them sanctified is misguided, not merciful. 3
rockpond Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 What would be funny is if the church in a couple months decides to reverse this policy and comes out with a policy that those who left the Church over this must wait 10 years before they can be a member again. The church can't make it appear that joining and leaving the Church can be as easy and signing up for Dish or Direct TV or Costco. You think that would be "funny"? Wow. There is real hurt being felt out there. 2
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 You simply highlighted the dysfunction I said came about after the policy, but your initial claim was "already so dysfunctional".I didn't say everything was hunky dory. My life isn't hunky dory and yet I wouldn't say me and mine are dysfunctional.For some reason you're reading far more into it. I've lose interest as to why. I can't understand why you would do that and stand by it. Yes I consider leaving a wife and children for a gay partner dysfunctional. I also suspect a wife who is quick to use this new policy to get a lawyer and sue for sole custody was not as OK with the original arrangement as you present. Call it a hunch. 2
rockpond Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 In America one can sue anyone for any reason. Good point.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 You simply highlighted the dysfunction I said came about after the policy, but your initial claim was "already so dysfunctional".I didn't say everything was hunky dory. My life isn't hunky dory and yet I wouldn't say me and mine are dysfunctional.For some reason you're reading far more into it. I've lose interest as to why. I can't understand why you would do that and stand by it. Hell I have my own dysfunctional behaviors. I don't ask the brethren to change the gospel to accommodate them. Glad to know you have it all worked out. 3
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Yes I consider leaving a wife and children for a gay partner dysfunctional. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Thus, the only thing that could have already been "so dysfunctional" before the policy was not reality. That's why I took issue. Instead of just agreeing, you don't know their story, you stood by your condemnation of people who don't know at all. I also suspect a wife who is quick to use this new policy to get a lawyer and sue for sole custody was not as OK with the original arrangement as you present. Call it a hunch. I can also call it a you don't know what you're talking about. I've already described this stuff. You want to read into it something that is not there to satisfy yourself. It's a shame this isn't about you, though.
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Hell I have my own dysfunctional behaviors. I don't ask the brethren to change the gospel to accommodate them. Glad to know you have it all worked out. No one's asked the brethren to change the gospel. They made the change to policy. That's what we're talking about, no? With or without the policy the gospel is the same, no? Edited November 11, 2015 by stemelbow
DJBrown Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 How has the practice of our religion been affected by that decision? It was the Church's decision to change the handbook, not the Supreme Court. You'll need to show that the change was forced by the legalization of gay marriage if you wish to make such a claim. The mass resignations are a result of the Church's handbook change. Not the legalization of gay marriage. Many members of the church are declaring that the change is confusing because we believe it contradicts existing doctrine. Many are requesting their names be removed because they no longer want to be associated with a church that cannot seem to find a place for gay people. You may see this as having to do with the SCOTUS decision. But I can't see the connection. I have respect for those who believe this was an inspired decision by our leaders. I would hope that you can be similarly open-minded enough to understand that many members of your church see this policy as a departure from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The point is that the Supreme Court decision was a significant factor in the increasingly hostile environment of our society as it relates to our religion. The broad campaign for same-sex marriage has influenced LDS and non-LDS in a relatively short period of time. From the perspective of the "world," prophets of God are now freaks and same-sex couples are elevated to special status. 3
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Are you seriously arguing that the family where the father left the wife and children to be with a gay partner was completely functional and good for the children until the point at which the brethren updated the handbook? 4
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Are you seriously arguing that the family where the father left the wife and children to be with a gay partner was completely functional and good for the children until the point at which the brethren updated the handbook? I did not argue that. I said their situation, as rare as it may be, was worsened as they learned of the policy. I thought my point was rather simple. And it's true, I did not want to hear hasty judgments about them in hopes to justify the policy.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 No one's asked the brethren to change the gospel. They made the change to policy. That's what we're talking about, no? With or without the policy the gospel is the same, no? In fact many are asking the brethren to change the gospel. Accept gay marriage as a part of our sacraments, or at least turn a blind eye to it among members. That is what I'm talking about. Clarifying a policy to make it very clear that gay marriage is not even passively acceptable, but is rather apostasy (which active opposition to God's laws has always been) did not cause the problems and heartache. The sin did that. Blaming the policy change for the pain and suffering that is happening to those children now and ignoring the fact that the sinful actions caused it is trying to have it both ways. How would you make it clear that these arrangements are not acceptable, when people insist on doing them, and not cause additional difficulty? Write your own policy that is better and still honors the laws of God. Then present it to the brethren. They might take you up on it. 2
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I did not argue that. I said their situation, as rare as it may be, was worsened as they learned of the policy.I thought my point was rather simple. And it's true, I did not want to hear hasty judgments about them in hopes to justify the policy. I thought the situation that brought about the policy was rather simple and straightforward. Members were starting to lobby for acceptance of gay marriage or at least a neutral stance towards it. I'm rather tired of hearing hasty judgments about the brethren and Saints who support the policy. We're doing a great job of disagreeing. Thanks for the invitation to do so. 3
Ares Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 And with all of this lovely disagreeing for 110 pages this has run its course.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I am not privy to the decision making process on the new handbook policy clarifying same sex marriage as apostasy. However it would not surprise me that a clear statement on the matter is a way of preventing a same sex couple who visits and worships at an LDS ward, from suing to have access to marriage in the ward and temple. Membership in good standing is and has always been a requirement of entering the temple and participating in ordinances. By drawing a hard line and not implying benign acceptance of gay cohabitation or marriage or even neutrality on the subject, the church is somewhat insulated from that angle of attack on its doctrines and practices by gay marriage activists and proponents. I wouldn't be so paranoid if it weren't for people suing for wedding cakes, etc. from people who don't feel compelled to support those arrangements. 4
Recommended Posts