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

[Russell C McGregor]

Joseph Smith seems to have been a Rabid Libertarian at heart.

Actually you reversed the polarity on the two groups. Here, let me help you:

But while one portion of the human race (the self-appointed censors of Church policy) is judging and condemning the other without mercy (the 12 Apostles in SLC and now the Bishops throughout the church)...

There. Fixed it for you.

[Ron]

My wife is a true believer and I know she disagrees with the new policy regarding children

 

One can't be a true believer an support homosexual behavior. That is like supporting open marriages and other practices.  But one can support agency and to right of gays to be legally married.  I can deal and support that.  But if someone wants to bring that practice into the Church and have the Church endorse or support SSM, I will be among the first to get in their face.

 

I don't see this being about whether or not supporting homosexual behavior.  Its about the harm caused to gays and their children who want to participate in the church.

 

The policy has been in place for just a few days.

You are awfully confident about "the harm that it *will* cause," given that no actual harm has been seen yet.


What is the harm in agreeing with the policy?

 

 

It is clear to me that preventing a young child from participating in their religion based on something their custodial (or non custodial) parent parent is doing will cause some harm in some cases.  At minimum it adds to the anxiety that is already felt being felt by the child because of the situation that they did not create. :-(

[filovirus]

I don't think it's a coincidence that legalizing same-sex marriage in all states and then the church enacting this policy shortly thereafter. Most likely the first led to the latter. Coincidences usually aren't coincidence. Of course, the previous statements are all my opinion with no factual basis.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I am sorry and with all due respect, there has always been and always will be a place in the Church for gay people. I think the issue is not that there is not a place but rather that there is not a place where they can be involved in homosexual sex or SSM and still be considered members in good standing. It may seem like nitpicking, but there is a significant difference with what you said and I how did. 

 

And yours is mischaracterization and mine is not.

[ERayR]

As was apparent by the number of people who were excommunicated while he was the president of the church.  

 

Many of those were ex'ed for advocating teachings contrary to the gospel and if let go would destroy the Church.  This policy will limit the number who will grow to consider SSM and homosexual behavior as okay in the eyes of God and the Church thus causing a weakening off the Doctrines of God concerning SSM and homosexual behavior.

[ERayR]

My wife is a true believer and I know she disagrees with the new policy regarding children

 

 

I don't see this being about whether or not supporting homosexual behavior.  Its about the harm caused to gays and their children who want to participate in the church.

 

 

 

 

No it is about keeping a whole generation from growing to maturity in the Church believing SSM and homosexual behavior is acceptable to God.

[ERayR]

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.

 

I see it as a way of keeping a whole generation from growing up in the church thinking SSM is acceptable.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

I don't see it as directly "forced," but I think it follows fairly closely.

The Church has long used legal marriage as a boundary condition to the Law of Chastity. You might not have noticed this, being somewhat uninvolved in this particular conversation, but some had argued that since same sex "marriage" was now legal, the Church couldn't consistently exclude homosexual couples.

As a result, the Church pretty much had to do something.

I had expected some sort of clarification of the Law of Chastity, but instead we got a declaration that same sex "marriage" is, well, a certain word that gets me immediately reported to the mods, with all the predictability of a knee jerk (or any other kind.)

But including SSM in that category covers the Church's bases quite nicely, and does away with the need to clarify the LofC.

 

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.

Of course it doesn't. That's just ridiculous.

 

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.

Which is sad, but it's their choice. The Church has the same place for "gay people" as it does for everyone else: it is conditional upon repentance.

 

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.

In the which, they are plainly wrong.

[Ares]

Dont start rehashing the same closed thread. This ground has been gone over until it was stomped flat. Stick to the original topic, that is can someone disagree with the policies of the church and still be considered a TBM.

[Gray]

No idea and I do not plan on trying. Disagreeing vocally? Yeah, those people are rebelling against those who hold the Priesthood Keys.

 

Unfortunately this approach will stunt the development of moral reasoning. Unquestioning obedience should never be found in Zion. 

[Daniel2]

It has not even been 5 months since the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.  Leading up to that decision, countless advocates of same-sex marriage insisted that legalizing such a union would not effect traditional marriages or the practice of religion on the part of those who opposed same-sex marriage.  Five months.  How soon we forget.  

 

Has the practice of our religion been effected by that decision?  The church announces a modification or addition to a handbook policy and the world is now up in arms in criticizing the church.  Mass resignations are organized.  Online, many members of the church are declaring how confusing this is for them.  Many are requesting their names be removed.  Maybe this would be no different without the court decision.  But I don't think so.

 

I just read a talk by Elder Maxwell.  In that talk, he said:

 

"President Cannon further observed that the Saints—meaning you and I—must not make the mistake of assuming the existence of any truce between the forces of Satan and God. To believe so, said President Cannon, is “a very great delusion, and a very common one.”

President Cannon then warned that the forms of resistance to righteousness will strike us “with wonder and astonishment.” This, he said, would occur because “the war” which was waged in heaven has been transferred to the earth,” and that this conflict, he said, “will [come to] occupy the thoughts and minds of all the inhabitants of the earth” (Journal of Discourses 11:227–29). Brothers and sisters, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be at the epicenter of all that.

 

On the sixth of April, 1845, the Twelve Apostles issued a proclamation which included these words:

As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest and excitement, no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will at length be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God." (Messages of the First Presidency, p. 257

 

This policy isn't dependent on same-sex marriage--it's applicable to any cohabitating same-sex couples raising children.

 

The reality of gay couples co-parenting children hasn't changed--the church has changed its approach to their children--regardless of whether the couples are married or unmarried.

 

The government  has not put any pressure on the LDS church to change it's policy--this was a preemptive decision implemented by the church based on their own internal decisions--not because of any effect of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

 

No one I know has said the church would be immune to social pressure or criticism--in fact, just the opposite.

 

The arguments we've made is any pressure to change church policies or even doctrines wouldn't come from the government, regardless of whether same-sex couples can legally marry.  And that was and continues to be true.

[carbon dioxide]

No it is about keeping a whole generation from growing to maturity in the Church believing SSM and homosexual behavior is acceptable to God.

Why would a whole generation grow to in the Church to believe SSM is good?  I don't understand how targeting those who are not gay protects the church from gays who are not members of the church anyway.  No gay person can be a member of the Church who is in a SSM.  That alone would tell the growing generation that SSM is not acceptable. 

[Gray]

No it is about keeping a whole generation from growing to maturity in the Church believing SSM and homosexual behavior is acceptable to God.

 

That can't be prevented by any policy. 

[Gray]

It has not even been 5 months since the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.  Leading up to that decision, countless advocates of same-sex marriage insisted that legalizing such a union would not effect traditional marriages or the practice of religion on the part of those who opposed same-sex marriage.  Five months.  How soon we forget.  

 

Has the practice of our religion been effected by that decision?  The church announces a modification or addition to a handbook policy and the world is now up in arms in criticizing the church.  Mass resignations are organized.  Online, many members of the church are declaring how confusing this is for them.  Many are requesting their names be removed.  Maybe this would be no different without the court decision.  But I don't think so.

 

I just read a talk by Elder Maxwell.  In that talk, he said:

 

"President Cannon further observed that the Saints—meaning you and I—must not make the mistake of assuming the existence of any truce between the forces of Satan and God. To believe so, said President Cannon, is “a very great delusion, and a very common one.”

President Cannon then warned that the forms of resistance to righteousness will strike us “with wonder and astonishment.” This, he said, would occur because “the war” which was waged in heaven has been transferred to the earth,” and that this conflict, he said, “will [come to] occupy the thoughts and minds of all the inhabitants of the earth” (Journal of Discourses 11:227–29). Brothers and sisters, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be at the epicenter of all that.

 

On the sixth of April, 1845, the Twelve Apostles issued a proclamation which included these words:

As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest and excitement, no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will at length be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God." (Messages of the First Presidency, p. 257

 

No court forced the church to make these policy changes. 

[carbon dioxide]

I think these can apply to the question at hand

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204)

 

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator-please note that one exception-you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by the same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it." (Harold B. Lee, "Stand Ye in Holy Places" p. 162-163)

[Daniel2]

Now members of my own religion are calling me ignorant or intolerant because I support the brethren in defining promotion and practice of same sex marriage within the church an apostate behavior.

 

That didn't take long.

 

I haven't seen complaints that the church has chosen to define "the promotion and practice of same sex marriage within the church an apostate behavior."

 

What I have seen is people decrying the church's decision to withhold baby blessings, baptism, ordinations, and recommendations for missionary service for children of same-sex couples, who are not personally accountable for their parents' behaviors; especially in cases where children have one faithful LDS parent and their gay/lesbian parent is supportive of the child's full participation.

[stephenpurdy]

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.  ...

 

Tell that to the Christian bakers and Christian photographers.

 

-stephen

[PeterPear]

I suspect that the church will be sued in the future for not allowing same sex marriage in the temple.

 

-stephen

So? Marriages aren't performed in LDS Temples in other countries.

But sealings of man and wife under the authority of the priesthood do occur.

If the US govt decides not to recognize marriage in LDS Temples, then the couple will get married legally and sealed later in the Temple.

Big woop. You think legal SSM will stop the Lord's work? Think again.

[Russell C McGregor]

No court forced the church to make these policy changes.

Perhaps not, but the Obergefell decision clearly made it necessary for the Church to do something.

And as sure as the sun comes up, whatever the Church did would be wrong, as far as some parties are concerned.

[Daniel2]

I suspect that the church will be sued in the future for not allowing same sex marriage in the temple.

 

-Stephen

 

I am willing to bet $100 that the church would successfully win any such lawsuit, and before it even went to trial.

[MiserereNobis]

Time to brush up on your Latin (don't forget: the devil knows Latin):

 

post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Dont start rehashing the same closed thread. This ground has been gone over until it was stomped flat. Stick to the original topic, that is can someone disagree with the policies ofnthebchich and still be considered a TBM.

The policies ofnthebchich?

Who's he, a Serbian composer?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Gray]

What if you vigorously defend the policy as written, and then a week from now the church makes modifications to it. Do you have to turn in your true believer card?

[Ares]

The policies ofnthebchich?

Who's he, a Serbian composer?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Ah yes... Moderating from a handheld device can be very difficult. So much for the image of moderator inerrancy.

[Russell C McGregor]

I am willing to bet $100 that the church would successfully win any such lawsuit, and before it even went to trial.

I'm not taking your bet, because you're probably right.

However, the nuisance value of such lawsuits goes beyond the likelihood that they will prevail.