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

[The Nehor]

Apostasy is about beliefs, not lifestyle. So this new rule doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

Ones lifestyle reflects their true beliefs, thought their stated beliefs may vary.

[carbon dioxide]

Even if the prophet proclaimed a revelation sanctioning SSM?

Yes.  To me a prophet proclaiming a revelation sanctioning SSM would be on the same level as a prophet claiming a revelation that the BOM was not literally true but just nice stories Joseph Smith made up to teach the gospel.  Continuing revelation adds to the foundation that God has given.  It does not place a 100 pounds of C4 explosives to the foundation and blows it up.

[Calm]

 I think it is the conscious choice of the participants that seals them together.  

 

But the conscious choice has to be made and if the ritual has been appointed as the way the choice is expressed, doesn't that make the ritual required?

 

To not participate in the ritual would kind of like consciously choosing to eat an omelet, but then refusing to bring the omelet to one's mouth.  How can one say one has chosen when one doesn't act in such a way to support the choice?

[smac97]

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.

 

I'm not sure the Church "seems to spend too much time on this one issue."  Note that this "issue" is not being publicized by the Church (it's not in the Church's newsroom website), but is being fanned by the likes of John Dehlin and distorted by the Tribune (note the absurd falsehood in the title to this article: "New Mormon policy makes apostates of married same-sex couples, bars children from rites").

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Agreed.  I used hyperbole here.

But whether to deny one of God's children who accepts Christ as their Savior and repents of their sins entrance into the baptismal covenant can't be considered anything but a moral issue.

 

The importance of the gospel completely outweighs the importance of the Church.

 

I am not so sure if it is moral to put a minor into that position.

[The Nehor]

So in a joint custody situation, the child could not be baptized?

 

The person who asked the question is in this situation (their ex-husband is in a same sex marriage).  They wrote that this would be the last straw for them and they'll stop attending church if their child is not allowed to be baptized and she will not ask her child to stop seeing (or living part time with) their Dad.

 

That would be my understanding.

 

I would suggest that if they are hauling around so much straw that this straw is the last one that breaks the camel's back then it was almost inevitable that some piece of straw would show up eventually.

 

A sad story but I still think the church made the right decision.

[readstoomuch]

SSM, gays and other social issues seem to be so dividing in our Church, society and families.  It seems like each person`s situation as far as them being baptized into the Church needs to considered on its own merits.  The same with someone from a polygamist family.  Isn`t it supposed to depend on their testimony?  I know it will effect very few people, but it will be further dividing.  I am not sure how we are supposed to show Christ like love to gays and the families they bring together.  I am looking to the Church for help and this is confusing to me.  My two oldest inactive children will use this as another excuse to stay away from the Church.  

[carbon dioxide]

But one is in apostasy and the other is not (at least not just by being unwed, they may be for other reasons)...that is if they are LDS members, which seems like the only reason they would want their child blessed or baptized.

For me I don't see SSM as apostasy but a violation of the law of chastity.  Both are serious violations of the laws of God but different violations.  Apostasy to me is rebellion.  One can engage in a SSM out of rebellion but I would think that is not the motivating factor for it. 

[JLHPROF]

I am not so sure if it is moral to put a minor into that position.

 

The Church was restored in 1830.

18 as the age of majority is a much more recent development.  I think this smacks more of legal maneuvering than gospel principle.

 

I don't think a 15 year old was considered "too young" to enter the baptismal covenant for the vast majority of the Church's existence, and I know of no revelation that changed that.

 

(Having to give an opinion against the Church on the same side as SSM supporters really doesn't sit well with me.  But I still consider this new policy as going against correct gospel principles.)

Edited November 6, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

That is too PC for me. I think people have a thicker skin that what PC police claim.  I can't think of one diabetic that I know who has a problem with the term "diabetic."

There is nothing PC about this.  It is a decision based on psychological observations of the link between attitudes and behaviour.  It is not having a PC problem with being called a diabetic.  There is nothing socially wrong with being a diabetic.  It is what occurs in the head when one labels oneself by a behaviour or one aspect of one's personality.  Does one have control over the condition or does the condition control?

 

Our daughter's behaviour in the first year made it obvious why we needed to make that distinction.  She saw it as taking over her whole life to the point at initially expressing the desire to die rather than to have even one more insulin injection.  Took her years to figure out that it wasn't controlling her, but that she could control it.  Next step was doing the same for her depression, then her anxiety.  Now she is working on overcoming her last big obstacle to a normal lifestyle, her sleep disorder.

 

Say one calls oneself an introvert.  The result of that is likely an increase in introverted behaviour which may include greater discomfort in social settings and other undesirable effects.  Basic psychology.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Daniel2]

I have long sought to be an advocate of mutual understanding and tolerance of my LDS friends and family in the face of actions that many within the LGBT community have found repugnant.

Thus announcement grieves me more than any other action taken by the church--even more than Prop 8--because the church directly has uequiviocably driven a sharp, hard, and divisive wedge between my own children and I. I am struggling with regret at ever having extended good-will towards the church by authorizing and supporting my own children's baptisms, now that they will be subjected to the LDS cultural climate that fosters that kind of familial division and a need for children to condemn the practices of a parent such as I.

Those recent words of those LDS leaders who have publically advocated for compassion, understanding, and respect now ring entirely hollow. The church seems to be a disease that is infecting my children and poisoning their relationship with me, despite all my efforts to be supportive in every way of my children's full participation and fellowship irregardless of my own personal disbelief or reservations. It is hard to take this announcement as anything less than an all-out assault on MY family, and on MY relationship with my children.

I am deeply saddened. I am angry. I am incredulous that the church would reject the extension of good-will from LGBT parents like me by punishing children of families like mine. I am grieving for the stress and pressure and confusion this announcement will cause my own kids. And I am seriously re-evaluating my long-standing support of mutual respect and bridge-building efforts of this increasingly foul-tasting "Faith."

I apologize if I have offended--I have laid bare my emotions because this cuts down to the deepest core of the most important relationships I have on this earth. I hope I can find a way back to advocating for mutually-respectful dialogue, and rediscover strength to continue rebuilding together. For tonight, I will simply grieve.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Daniel2

[VideoGameJunkie]

Heterosexual men who confess fornication to women to Bishops can be forgiven and not even disfellowshipped, so we draw the line at gay marriage it seems for unforgivable chastity breaking.

[carbon dioxide]

SSM, gays and other social issues seem to be so dividing in our Church, society and families.  It seems like each person`s situation as far as them being baptized into the Church needs to considered on its own merits.  The same with someone from a polygamist family.  Isn`t it supposed to depend on their testimony?  I know it will effect very few people, but it will be further dividing.  I am not sure how we are supposed to show Christ like love to gays and the families they bring together.  I am looking to the Church for help and this is confusing to me.  My two oldest inactive children will use this as another excuse to stay away from the Church.  

It is sad that this division is occurring when only 2% of the population is gay anyway.  Far more people are having problems with drug addiction but that does not seem to get as much conference talks and press releases from the Church as gay marriage.  However people will always come up with an excuse to stay away from the Church.  If it is not SSM, they will think of something else. 

[The Nehor]

Good question. But I think going forward it's going to be very tough for people who have (openly) very conservative views on homosexuality to be functional members of society. Imagine what it would be like to be openly against mixed race marriage in 2015.

 

Funny story:

 

A gay friend of mine had a gay roommate who was basically a racist nazi who believed race mixing was wrong. Said roommate got very annoyed when he dated a black guy for the disgusting "race mixing". My friend was amused and confused and still wonders if the nazi understood that the relationship could not produce a mixed-race baby.

 

As long as we have the Deep South I do not have to imagine. I know people opposed to it. They don't make a big deal about it.

 

 

What if people at work knew you felt that way? Then project anti-gay views forward 20 years and imagine what that will be like to hold those views.

 

So I think the way forward is not to cater to the most conservative members. People with those views will be all but gone in a generation.

 

Most people at work know I am Mormon and don't care. Unless I share my beliefs on gay marriage (I don't because it is rarely appropriate) and treat everyone with respect and continue to be friends with both gay and straight (and one bi) coworker I really doubt it will be an issue. It will go the way of Prohibition. We still don't drink but those who drink around us do not usually find it awkward to be around us.

 

If God changes the rules I will be among the first to cheer (and have questions about how that will work). If it does not and I do not expect it to we will survive. The church is not supposed to be popular. I was a child and a teenager in an era when we were generally respected and liked. That may change and it is probably good for us to have it change. Makes choices a little more stark.

[Danzo]

Agreed. I used hyperbole here.

But whether to deny one of God's children who accepts Christ as their Savior and repents of their sins entrance into the baptismal covenant can't be considered anything but a moral issue.

The importance of the gospel completely outweighs the importance of the Church.

Are you opposed to other restrictions on children being baptized?

Consent from parents?

Restrictions on people from certain countries? (Citizens of certain Muslim countries and isreali citizens in my mission had certain restrictions)

[The Nehor]

The Church was restored in 1830.

18 as the age of majority is a much more recent development.  I think this smacks more of legal maneuvering than gospel principle.

 

I don't think a 15 year old was considered "too young" to enter the baptismal covenant for the vast majority of the Church's existence, and I know of no revelation that changed that.

 

(Having to give an opinion against the Church on the same side as SSM supporters really doesn't sit well with me.  But I still consider this new policy as going against correct gospel principles.)

 

I know, my g-g-grandmother joined the Church at the age of 14 and was kicked out of the house. Things change.

[carbon dioxide]

Heterosexual men who confess fornication to women to Bishops can be forgiven and not even disfellowshipped, so we draw the line at gay marriage it seems for unforgivable chastity breaking.

The difference is that those who confess fornication can be forgiven if they repent which means they don't do it again.  In order to repent for gay marriage, the first thing one must do is get a divorce. 

[The Nehor]

Heterosexual men who confess fornication to women to Bishops can be forgiven and not even disfellowshipped, so we draw the line at gay marriage it seems for unforgivable chastity breaking.

 

Gay marriage is like polygamy in that it puts a legal stamp on your sin. It is not unforgiveable but it is unrepentant.

[Danzo]

Heterosexual men who confess fornication to women to Bishops can be forgiven and not even disfellowshipped, so we draw the line at gay marriage it seems for unforgivable chastity breaking.

They are (or should) only be forgiven on condition of repentance. Nothing different for homosexaul as sins.

[The Nehor]

I have long sought to be an advocate of mutual understanding and tolerance of my LDS friends and family in the face of actions that many within the LGBT community have found repugnant.

Thus announcement grieves me more than any other action taken by the church--even more than Prop 8--because the church directly has uequiviocably driven a sharp, hard, and divisive wedge between my own children and I. I am struggling with regret at ever having extended good-will towards the churchin by authorizing and supporting my own children's baptisms, now that they will be subjected to the LDS cultural climate that fosters that kind of familial division and a need for children to condemn the practices of a parent such as I.

Those recent words of those LDS leaders who have publically advocated for compassion, understanding, and respect now ring entirely hollow. The church seems to be a disease that is infecting my children and poisoning their relationship with me, despite all my efforts to be supportive in every way of my children's full participation and fellowship, regardless of my own personal beliefs or reservations. It is hard to take this announcement as anything less than an all-out assault on MY family, and on MY relarionship with my children.

I am deeply saddened. I am angry. I am incredulous that the church woyld reject my extension of good-will by punishing children of families like mine. I am grieving for the stress and pressure and confusion this announcement will cause my own kids. And I am seriously re-evaluating my long-standing support of mutual respect and bridge-building efforts of this increasingly foul-tasting "Faith."

I apologize if I have offended--I have laid bare my emotions because this cutd down to the deepest core of the most important relationships I have on this earth. I hope I can find a way back to advocating for mutually-respectful dialogue. For tonight, I will simply grieve.

 

I like you and I grieve with you.

 

I still think the decision wise and needful but I wish it did not cause you pain.

[JLHPROF]

Are you opposed to other restrictions on children being baptized?

Consent from parents?

Restrictions on people from certain countries? (Citizens of certain Muslim countries and isreali citizens in my mission had certain restrictions)

 

There is gospel principle behind the necessity for parental consent that is well established.

Other than that, what right does one man have to deny a covenantal relationship with Christ to a sincere believer?

[Calm]

 I did it to show the differentiation in how the person usually views it. A person can call themselves an alcoholic but most do not see it as the core of who they are.

There are so many ways that people can self-label that can inhibit growth...and like you said, others don't see them that way so it is really unnecessary.

 

It is a lot harder to change if one has stuck a label on oneself and proclaimed it to the world.  Sometimes that can be a good thing (calling oneself a Mormon for example ), but often it is an unfortunate choice.

 

It is a bit of an obsession of mine...people telling me they can't do something because of some trait that really doesn't stop them at all, they just need to find a new way that works for them.  It started in high school when I was tutoring other kids in math and they would tell me they just couldn't do math because _____.

[halconero]

Oh...boy is that a path we don't want to go down and reasoning we don't want to use.

 

How many immoral decisions have been made to "prevent harm"?  Internment camps?  Abortion?  A certain Missouri governor's extermination order?

 

One of our canonized scriptures outlines a decision on denying slaves ordinances to prevent harm:

"We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude." - D&C 134

[Calm]

For me I don't see SSM as apostasy but a violation of the law of chastity. 

 

 

You may not, but the Church just defined it that way for someone who is a member of the Church.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Danzo]

There is gospel principle behind the necessity for parental consent that is well established.

Other than that, what right does one man have to deny a covenantal relationship with Christ to a sincere believer?

Is it even possible for one man to deny a covenantal relationship with Christ to a sincere believer? I don't think so.

I remember in my mission, when a young woman, who had been active for four years, got baptized upon turning 18, because her parents would not give consent. It was clear to me that her covenant had been made long before the necessary formalities.